Skip to main content

Full text of "Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the Arians"

See other formats 


L  I  B  R.A  RY 
OF  THE 
U  N  '  VER.51TY 
or  ILLINOIS^ 

%8f 

\m 


Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below.  A 
charge  is  made  on  all  overdue 
books. 

U.  of  I.  Library  M 


JUil  ^K)  la^z 


AII6  3  019I« 


\ 

\ 

\ 


14685-S 


SELECT  TREATISES 

OF 

ST.  ATHANASIUS 

m  CONTROVERSY  WITH  THE  ARIANS. 
FREELY  TRANSLATED 

VY 

JOHN  HENRY  Cx^RDINAL  NEWMAN, 

Honorary  Fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Oxford, 
and  late  Fellow  of  Oriel. 

VOL.  II. 

BEING  AN  APPENDIX  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS. 

FOURTH  EDITION. 


ILantian : 

LONGMANS,     G  R  1^:  E  N ,     AND  CO. 
And  new  YORK:  15,  EAST  IGtii  STIIKIOT. 


1  88  8. 


0 


BIRMINGHAM  : 
MARTIN  BILLING,  SON,  AND  CO.,  PRINTERS, 
LIVERY  STREET. 


APPEN  DIX. 


CONTENTS. 


1.  Index  of  Annotations  on  Theological  Subjects 

in  the  foregoing  Treatises  alphabetically 
arranged       .....    page  vii 

2.  Index  of  Annotations  on  Theological  Terms 

in  the  foregoing  Treatises  alpliabetically 
arranged       .....    page  844 


vii 

Index  of  Annotations  on  Theological  Subjects  in  the 
foregoing  Treatises  alphabetically  arranged. 

PAGE 


Adam  ...........  1 

Alexander's  Encyclical  ........  8 

Angels.        ..........  7 

Antichrist     ..........  13 

Apostle        ..........  16 

Arius    .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .        .  .17 

The  Arians. — 1.  Their  Ethical  Characteristics        .       .  .21 

2.  The  Arian  Leaders  26 

3.  Arian  Tenets  and  Reasonings       ,       .  .34: 

4.  Historical  Course  of  Arianism      ...  46 
Asteriiis       ..........  48 

Athanasius    .        .        ,        .        ,        .        .        .        .  .51 

The  Vicarious  Atonement      .......  60 

Catechising  ..........  63 

Catholic  :  the  Name  and  the  Claim      .....  65 

Chameleons  ..........  71 

The  Coinherence  .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .  .72 

Cursus  Publicus    .........  80 

Definitions    .        .        .     ;  .        .       .        .        .        .  .82 

Deification    ...        .......  88 

Economical  Language   ........  91 

Ecumenical  ..........  96 

Eusebius      ..........  97 

The  Father  Almighty  107 

Flesh   .       .       .   120 

Use  of  Force  in  Religion      .......  123 

Freedom  of  our  Moral  Nature      .       .       .       .       .  .127 

Grace  of  God       .       .       .       .       .       .        .       •  .136 

Hand  142 

Heresies  .  •       .  .143 

Heretics  .  .  .       .       •  .150 

Hieracas       .        .        .        .        .        .        .  .156 

Homousion,  Homneusion        .        .        .  .        .  .155 

Hypocrisy,  Hypocrites  .  •        .  .156 

Hypostasis    .       .        .  •        .        .  .158 

Idolatry  of  Arinnisiu    .  .  .159 


Vlll 


PAGE 

l;^'n()i"in(M!  jissiinicd  (;coiiuinic}ilIy  by  our  Lord       .        .        .  161 
lUuHtratioiis  .........  173 

Imago  ...........  178 

Imperial  Titles  and  Honours        ......  184 

The  Incarnation. — 1.  Considered  in  its  purpose     .        .        .  187 
2.  Considered  in  itself      .       .       .  .191 

The  Divine  In-Dwelling  193 

Marcellus  196 

The  Blessed  Mary.— 1.  Mary  Ever- Virgin     .        .        .  .204 
2.  Marv  Theotocus        .        .        .  .210 

Mediation  216 

Melitius  222 

The  Two  Natures  223 

The  Nicene  Tests  226 

Omnipresence  of  God    ........  235 

Paul  of  Samosati   .        .  287 

Personal  Acts  and  Offices  of  our  Lord  .....  240 

Philosophy  243 

Priesthood  of  Christ     ........  245 

Private  Judgment        ........  247 

The  Rule  of  Faith  250 

Sabellius      ..........  254 

Sanctification  267 
Scripture. — 1.  Canon     ........  260 

2.  Authority  .  .        .  .261 

3.  Passages  ........  266 

Semi-Arians  .........  282 

Son  of  God   287 

Special  Characteristics  of  our  Lord's  Manhood     .       .        .  293 
Spirit  of  God       .........  304 

Theognostus         .  .  ^  .310 

Tradition      .......  32^ 

The  Holy  Trinity  in  Unity  315 

Unity  of  the  Incarnate  Son  .......  326 

Vapour   330 

Two  Wills  in  Christ     .       .        .       .        .        .  .331 

Wisdom  

The  Word    .       .       .       ,  qq^ 


Annotations  on  Theological  Subjects  in  the  foregoing 
Treatises,  alphabetically  arranged. 


ADAM. 

Though  the  Fathers,  in  accordance  with  Scripture, 
hold  that  Adam  was  created  sinless,  they  also  hold 
that  he  could  not  have  persevered  in  his  state  of 
innocence  and  uprightness  without  a  special  grace, 
which  he  lost  upon  his  fall,  and  which  is  regained  for 
us,  (and  that  in  far  greater  measure,)  by  our  Lord^s 
sufferings  and  merits. 

^  The  Catholic  doctrine  is,  that  Adam  innocent  was 
mortal,  yet  in  fact  would  not  have  died ;  that  he  had 
no  principle  of  eternal  life  within  his  body  naturally, 
but  was  sustained  continually  by  divine  power  till 
such  time  as  immortality  should  have  been  given  him. 
Yid.  Incarn.  4.  ^'If  God  accorded  to  the  garments 
and  shoes  of  the  Israelites,^^  says  S.  Augustine,  that 
they  should  not  wear  out  during  so  many  years,  how  is 
it  strange  that  to  man  obedient  should  by  His  power 
be  accorded,  that,  whereas  liis  body  was  animal  and 
mortal,  it  was  so  constituted  as  to  become  aged  without 
decay,  and  at  such  time  as  God  willed  might  pass 
without  the  intervention  of  death  from  mortality  to 

VOL.  II.  13 


0 


ADAM. 


immortality  ?  For  as  the  flesh  itself,  which  we  now 
bear,  is  not  therefore  invulnerable,  because  it  may  be 
preserved  from  wounding,  so  Adam's  was  not  therefore 
not  mortal,  because  he  was  not  bound  to  die.  Such  a 
habit  even  of  their  present  animal  and  mortal  body  I 
suppose  was  granted  also  to  them  who  have  been 
translated  hence  without  death ;  for  Enoch  and  Elias 
too  have  through  so  long  a  time  been  preserved  from 
the  decay  of  age.''  De  Pecc.  Mer.  i.  3.  Adam's  body, 
he  says  elsewhere,  was  '^mortale  quia  poterat  mori, 
immortale  quia  poterat  non  mori ;  "  and  he  goes  on  to 
say  that  immortality  was  given  him  de  ligno  vitso, 
non  de  constitutione  naturae. Gen.  ad  Lit.  vi.  36. 
This  doctrine  came  into  the  controversy  with  Baius, 
and  Pope  S.  Pius  V.  condemned  the  assertion,  Im- 
mortalitas  primi  hominis  non  erat  gratise  beneficium, 
sed  naturalis  conditio." 

Then,  as  to  his  soul,  S.  Augustine  says,  "  An  aid 
was  [given  to  the  first  Adam],  but  a  more  powerful 
grace  is  given  to  the  Second.  The  first  is  that  by 
which  a  man  has  justice  if  he  will ;  the  second  does 
more,  for  by  it  he  also  wills,  and  wills  so  strongly,  and 
loves  so  ardently,  as  to  overcome  the  will  of  the  flesh 
lusting  contrariwise  to  the  will  of  the  spirit,"  &c. 
De  Corr.  et  Grat.  31.  And  S.  Cyril,  Our  forefather 
Adam  seems  to  have  gained  wisdom,  not  in  time,  as 
we,  but  appears  perfect  in  understanding  from  the  very 
first  moment  of  his  formation,  preserving  in  himself  the 
illumination,  given  him  by  nature  from  God,  as  yet  un- 
troubled and  pure,  and  leaving  the  dignity  of  his  nature 
unpractised  on,"  &c.    In  Joan.  p.  75. 


ALEXANDER. 


3 


ALEXANDER'S  ENCYCLICAL. 

Vid.  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  1,  Prefatory  Notice. 

I  HERE  set  down  the  internal  evidence  in  favour  of 
this  Letter  having  been  written  by  Athanasius. 

A  long  letter  on  Arius  and  his  tenets^  addressed 
by  Alexander  to  his  namesake  at  Constantinople,  has 
been  preserved  for  us  by  Theodoret,  and  we  can  com- 
pare the  Encyclical  on  the  one  hand  with  this  Letter, 
and  with  the  acknowledged  writings  of  Athanasius  on 
the  other^  and  thereby  determine  for  ourselves  whether 
the  Encyclical  does  not  resemble  in  style  what 
Athanasius  has  written^  and  does  not  differ  from  the 
style  of  Theodoret's  Alexander.  Athanasius  is  a  great 
writer,  simple  in  his  diction,  clear,  unstudied,  direct, 
vigorous,  elastic,  and  above  all  characteristic ;  but 
Alexander  writes  with  an  effort,  and  is  elaborate  and 
exquisite  in  his  vocabulary  and  structure  of  sentences. 

Thus,  the  Encyclical  before  us,  after  S.  Athanasius^s 
manner  in  treating  of  sacred  subjects,  has  hardly  one 
scientific  term;  its  words,  when  not  Arius's  own,  are 
for  the  most  part  from  Scripture,  such  as  X6709,  (Tocj^ia, 
fjLovoyevrjf;,  el/ccop,  uTrair/acrfjLa,  just  as  they  are  found  in 
Athanasius's  controversial  Treatises ;  whereas,  in  Alex- 
ander's letter  in  Theodoret,  phrases  are  found,  certainly 
not  from  Scripture,  perhaps  of  Alexandrian  theology, 

B  2 


4 


ALEXANDER. 


perhaps  peculiar  to  the  writer,  for  instance,  axwpta-Ta 
Trpafy/jLara  Svo'  6  u to?  rrjv  Kara  iravra  ofMOLcorrjra  avrov 
e.K  (^vaem  aTTO/jba^ofjuevor  81  eaoTrrpov  aKTjXiScoTOV  fcal 
efiyjrvxov  Oeia^  eiKovor  /juecnrevovaa  (f)vai^  fxovo^evTny  ra^ 
TTj  vTToo-rdaet  Bvo  ^vaei^.  And,  instead  of  the  ovaia  of 
the  Father,  of  the  Son,  of  the  Word,  which  is  one  of 
the  few,  as  well  as  familiar,  scientific  terms  of  Athana- 
sius  (Orat.  i.  §  45,  ii.  7,  9,  11,  12,  13,  18,  22,  47,  56),  and 
which  the  Encyclical  uses  too,  we  read  in  the  Letter  of 
Alexander,  preserved  by  Theodoret,  viroaracn^,  and  that 
again  and  again;  e.g.,  rrjv  Ihtorpoirov  avrov  ifiroaTaaiv* 
tt)^  VTTO(TTacre(o<^  avrov  aTrepLspyarrrov'  vecorepau  rrjf; 
vTTocrrdaem  yeveaLV  7)  rov  fJLOVoy€VOv<;  dvefcSt^jrjro^; 
vTroaraac^'  rrjv  rov  \6yov  viroaracTLV,  phrases  quite  out 
of  keeping  with  the  style  of  the  Encyclical.  Nor  is  it 
only  in  the  expression  of  theological  ideas  that  the 
style  of  the  Letcer  in  Theodoret  differs  from  the  style  of 
the  Encyclical;  thus,  when  the  latter  speaks  of  ^^opea? 
rciv  yfrv)(^ooVy  the  former  uses  the  compound  ^6opoiTOi6<=;\ 
Such,  too,  are  77  ^i\ap')(o<^  Ka\  (j^iXapyvpo^;  irpoOecn^^' 
')(^pLare/jL7ropLav'  (^pevo^afiov^'  IStorpOTrov  6iJbocrroL')(oi<^ 
crvWa^aU'  6er]y6pov<^  dTrocrroXov^'  dvrLStacrroXrjv'  rrj^ 
irarpLtcrj^  fjLaievcreco^'  (pcXoOeo^;  cra^r}veLa'  dvooruovpyia^' 
(})X7}vd(f)Q)v  fjLvOcov,  It  is  very  difl&cult  to  suppose  that 
the  same  hand  wrote  this  Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople and  the  Encyclical  which  is  the  subject  of 
this  note. 

On  the  other  hand,  that  Athanasius  wrote  the  latter 
becomes  almost  certain  when,  in  addition  to  what  has 
been  observed  in  Vol.  i.,  supr.,  in  the  Prefatory  Notice, 
the  following  coincidence  of  words  and  phrases  is 


ALEXANDER. 


5 


considered^  on  comparing  the  Encyclical  with  Athana- 
sius's  acknowledged  writings  :— 


Encyclical,  ap.  Socr. 
Hist.  i.  §  (3.  (Oxf.  Ed.  1S44.) 

1.  p.  6,  1.  2,  i^rjXdov, 

1  John  ii.  19. 

2.  ibid,  dvdpes  irapdvo- 

fJLOL. 

3.  ibid.  1.  4,  e^rfKOov 

diddaKOVTes  diro- 
(TTaaiav,  irpodpofMov 

TOV  ' XvTLXpicTTOV. 

4.  ibid.  Kal  i^ovXa/jL-rju 

ixev  CTLCJirfj  . 


5.  ibid,  1.  6,  pvirdbarj. 

6.  ibid,  rds  aKods. 

7.  ibid.  dKepaiuv. 

8.  ibid,  1.  14,  pTj/adTLa. 

i).    ibid.  1. 15,  KaKovoLav. 

10.  v^^i^Z.  1.  22,  &c.  The 

enumeration  of 
Arius'ri  tenets 

11.  p.  7,  1.  1,  di^atcrxw- 

rowres. 

12.  ibid.  1.  7,  rts  ydp 


Atlian.  0pp.  (Ed.  Benedict.  Paris.) 

1.  atpeaLS  vvv  t^eXdovaa,  Orat.  i.  §  1. 

2.  irapdvofjLOL,  kc.  Orat.  iii.  §  2 ;  Ep. 

.Eg.  16  ;   Hist.  Ar.  71,  75,  79. 

3.  pvv    i^eXdovcra,   irpodpofxos   rod  ^ Avtl- 

Xpio'Tov,  Orat,  i.  §  7. 


1.  This  form  of  apology,  introductory 
to  the  treatment  of  a  subject,  is 
usual  with  Athan.,  e.g.  Orat.  i. 
§  23,  init.,  ii.  1,  init.,  iii.  1,  ifiit.  ; 
Apol.  c.  Ar.  1,  init. ;  Deer.  §  5  ; 
Serap.  i.  1  and  16,  ii.  1,  m/^.,  iii.  1, 
i7iit.,  iv.  8  ;  Mon.  2  ;  Epict.  3  fin.  ; 
Max.  1  ;  A  poll.  i.  1,  i  jiit. 

5.  Orat.  i.  §  10  ;  Deer.  §  2  ;  Hist.  Ar. 

3;   Ep.  Mg.  11. 

6.  Orat.  i.  §  7  and  35  ;  Hist.  Ar.  56 ; 

Ep.  ^g.  13. 

7.  Orat.  i.  §  8,  ii.  34,  iii.  16  ;   Syn.  §  20, 

32,  and  45  ;  Ap.  c.  Ar.  1  ;  Ep.  .Eg. 
18  ;  Epict.  1  ;  Adelph.  2. 

8.  Orat.  i.  §  10  ;     Deer.  §  8  and  18  ; 

Sent.  Dion.  23. 

9.  Deer.  §  1  ;  Hist.  Ar.  §  75. 

10.  runs  with  Orat.  i.  §  5  ;  Deer.  §  6  ; 

Ep.  JKg.  12,  more  closely  than  with 
the  Letter  to  Constantinople. 

11.  Deer.  §  20. 


12. 


13.    ibid,  1.  8,  ^evi^eTai.  13. 


Vid.  similar  form  in  Orat.  i.  §  S  ; 

Ep.  Mg.  7  ;  Epict.  2  ;   Ap.  c.  Ar. 

85  ;   Hist.  Ar.  46,  73,  74,  &c. 
Orat.  i.  §  35  and  42,  ii.  34,  73,  and 

80,  iii.  30,  48;    Deer.  §  22. 


6 

Kiicyclical,  ap.  Socr. 
HiBt.  1.  §  6.  (Oxf.  Kd.  1844.) 

H.  p.  8, 1.27.  Theapo- 
lofjy  here  made 
for  the  use  of 
Mai.  iii.  6,  is 

16.  p.  8,1. 12.  The  text 
1  Tim.  iv.  1  in 
this  place,  is 


ALEXANDER. 

Athan.  0pp.  (Ed.  Benedict.  Paris.) 

14.    almost  mrhatim  with  that  found  in 
Orat.  i.  §  36. 


15.    applied  to  Arians  by  Athan.  also 
Orat.  i.  §  8.    By  whom  besides? 


ANGELS. 


7 


ANGELS. 

Angels  were  actually  worshipped^  in  the  proper  sense 
of  the  word^  by  Gnostics  and  other  heretics^  who  even 
ascribed  to  them  a  creative  power;  and  certainly,  to 
consider  them  the  source  of  any  good  to  man,  and 
the  acceptable  chaunel  intrinsically  of  approaching 
God,  in  derogation  of  our  Lord^s  sole  mediation,  is 
idolatry.  However,  their  presence  in  and  about  the 
Church,  and  with  all  of  us  individually,  is  an  inestim- 
able blessing,  never  to  be  slighted  or  forgotten ;  for,  as 
by  our  prayers  and  our  kind  deeds  we  can  serve  each 
other,  so  Angels,  but  in  a  far  higher  way,  serve  us,  and 
are  channels  of  grace  to  us,  as  the  Sacraments  also  are. 
All  this  would  doubtless  have  been  maintained  by 
Athanasius  had  there  been  occasion  for  saying  it.  For 
instance,  in  commenting  on  Psalm  49,  Dens  Deorum, 
he  says  so  in  substance  : — 

^  He  shall  summon  the  heaven  from  above.^  When 
the  Saviour  manifested  Himself,  He  kindled  in  us  the 
light  of  true  religious  knowledge  :  He  converted  that 
which  had  wandered;  He  bound  up  that  which  was 
ailing;  as  being  the  Good  Shepherd,  He  chased  away 
the  wild  beasts  from  the  sheepfold  ;  He  gave  His  people 
sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  protection  of  Angelic 
Powers,  and  He  set  those  over  them  through  the  whole 
world  who  should  be  holy  mystngogues.     ^  Ho  will 


8 


ANGELS. 


summon/  He  says,  '  the  Angels  who  are  in  heaven  and 
the  men  on  earth  chosen  for  the  Apostolate,  to  judge 
His  people.'  .  .  .  That  with  those  mystagogues  and  their 
disciples  Angels  co-operate,  Paul  makes  clear  when  he 
says,  Heb.  i,  14/'  &c.,  &c. 

^  If  it  be  asked  why,  such  being  his  substantial  teach- 
ing, his  language  in  particular  passages  of  his  Orations 
tends  to  discourage  such  cultus  Angelorum  as  the  Church 
has  since  his  time  sanctioned,  I  answer  first  that  he  is 
led  by  his  subject  to  contrast  the  Angelic  creation  with 
our  Lord  the  Creator ;  and  thus,  while  extolling  Him  as 
Supreme,  he  comes  to  speak  with  disparagement  of 
those  who  were  no  more  than  works  of  His  hands.  And 
secondly,  the  idolatrous  honour  paid  to  Angels  by  the 
heretical  bodies  at  that  time  made  unadvisable,  or 
created  a  prepossession  against,  what  in  itself  was 
allowable.  Moreover,  the  Church,  as  divinely  guided, 
has  not  formulated  her  doctrines  all  at  once,  but  has 
taken  in  hand,  first  one,  and  then  another.  As  to  S. 
Athanasius,  if  he  seemingly  disparages  the  Angels,  it 
is  in  order  to  exalt  our  Lord.  He  is  arguing  against 
the  Arians  somewhat  in  this  manner  :  You  yourselves 
allow  that  the  Son  is  the  Creator,  and,  as  such,  the 
object  of  worship ;  but,  if  He  be  the  Creator,  how  can 
He  be  a  creature  ?  how  can  He  be  only  a  higher  kind 
of  Angel,  if  it  was  He  who  created  Angels  ?  If  so.  He 
must  have  created  Himself.  Why,  it  is  the  very- 
enormity  of  the  Gnostics,  that  they  ascribe  creative 
power  and  pay  divine  honours  to  Angels ;  how  are  you 
not  as  bad  as  they  ? ''  Athanasius  does  not  touch  the 
question  whether,  as  Angels  and  Saints  according  to 


ANGELS. 


9 


him  are  {improprie)  gods  (vid.  next  paragraph)^  so  in  a 
corresponding  sense  worship  may  (improprie)  be  paid 
to  them. 

^  The  sacred  writer^  with  us  in  view^  says^  '  0  God. 
who  is  like  unto  Thee  ?  ^  and  though  he  calls  those 
creatures  who  are  partakers  {/jberoxov^)  of  the  Word 
gods^  still  those  who  partake  are  not  the  same  as^  or 
like^  Him  who  is  partaken.  For  works  are  made^  and 
make  nothing/^  ad  Afros  7.  Not  one  of  things  which 
come-to-be  is  an  efficient  cause/^  TroLrjri/cbv  clItlov,  Orat. 
ii.  §  21;  ibid.  §  2,  iii.  14^  and  contr.  Gent.  9  init. 

Our  reason  rejects  the  idea  that  the  Creator  should 
be  a  creature,  for  creation  is  by  the  Creator.^^  Hil. 
Trin.  xii.  5.  ttcS?  hvvaraL  to  fCTL^ofxevov  KTL^etv  j  7]  ttcS?  o 
KTL^cov  KTL^eraL;  Athan.  ad  Afros,  4  fin.  Vid  also 
Scrap,  i.  24,  6,  iii.  4 ;  Orat.  ii.  21. 

As  to  Angels,  vid.  August,  de  Civ.  Dei  xii.  24;  de 
Trin.  iii.  13—18  ;  Damasc,  F.  0.  ii.  3;  Cyril  in  Julian, 
ii.  p.  62.  ^^For  neither  would  the  Angels,^^  says 
Athan.,  Orat.  ii.  §  21,  since  they  too  are  creatures, 
be  able  to  frame,  though  Valentinus,  and  Marcion, 
and  Basilides  think  so,  and  you  are  their  copyists ; 
nor  will  the  sun,  as  being  a  creature,  ever  make 
what  is  not  into  what  is ;  nor  will  man  fashion  man, 
nor  stone  devise  stone,  nor  wood  give  growth  to  wood.'^ 
The  Gnostics  who  attributed  creation  to  Angels  are 
alluded  to  in  Orat.  iii.  12;  Bpiph.  Ha3r.  52,  53, 
62,  &c.  ;  Theodor.  Haer.  i.  1  and  3.  They  considered 
the  Angels  consubstantial  with  our  Lord,  as  the 
Manichees  after  them,  seemingly  from  holding  the 
doctrine  of  emanation.    Vid.  Bull.  D.  F.  N.  ii.  1,  §  2,  and 


10  ANGELS. 

Beausobre,  Manich.  iii.  8.  If,  from  S.  Taul  saying 
better  than  the  Angels,  they  should  therefore  insist 
that  his  language  is  that  of  comparison,  and  that 
comparison  in  consequence  implies  oneness  of  kind,  so 
that  the  Son  is  of  the  nature  of  Angels,  they  will  in  the 
first  place  incur  the  disgrace  of  rivalling  and  repeat- 
ing what  Valentinus  held,  and  Carpocrates,  and  those 
other  heretics,  of  whom  the  former  said  that  the  Angels 
were  one  in  kind  with  the  Christ,  and  Carpocrates  that 
Angels  are  framers  of  the  world/^    Orat.  i.  §  56. 

^  As  to  the  sins  incident  to  created  natures,  all 
creatures,  says  Athanasius,  depend  for  their  abidance 
in  good  upon  the  Word,  and  without  Him  have  no 
stay.  Thus,  ad  Afros  7,  after,  as  in  Orat.  i.  §  49, 
speaking  of  ayyeXcov  fiev  Trapa^dvrcov,  tov  8e  ^AScl/ll 
irapaicovaavTo^,  he  says,  ^^no  one  would  deny  that 
things  which  are  made  are  open  to  change  (Cyril,  in 
Joan.  V.  2),  and  since  the  Angels  and  Adam  trans- 
gressed, and  all  showed  their  need  of  the  grace  of  the 
Word,  what  is  thus  mutable  cannot  be  like  to  the  im- 
mutable God,  nor  the  creature  to  the  Creator.^^  On  the 
subject  of  the  sins  of  Angels,  vid.  Huet.  Origen.  ii,  5  ; 
Petav.  Dogm.  t.  iii.  p.  73 ;  Dissert.  Bened.  in  Cyr. 
Hier.  iii.  5 ;  Nat.  Alex.  Hist.  ^v.  i.  Dissert.  7. 

^  So  far  Athanasius  says  nothing  which  the  Church 
has  not  taught  up  to  this  day  ;  but  he  goes  further. 

No  one,^^  he  says,  Orat.  iii.  §12,  would  pray 
to  receive  aught  from  ^  God  and  the  Angels,^  or  from 
any  other  creature,  nor  would  he  say  '  May  God  and 
the  Angel  give  thee.'  Vid.  Basil  de  Sp.  S.  c.  13 
(t.  ii.  p.  585).      Also,      There   were   men,'^  says 


ANGELS. 


11 


Chrysostom  on  Col.  ii.,  who  said^  We  ought  not  to 
have  access  to  God  through  Christ,  but  through  Angels, 
for  the  former  is  beyond  our  power.  Hence  the  Apostle 
everywhere  insists  on  his  teaching  concerning  Christ, 
^  through  the  blood  of  the  Cross/  &c.  And  Theo- 
doret  on  Col.  iii.  17,  says  :  Following  this  rule,  the 
Synod  of  Laodicea,  with  a  view  to  cure  this  ancient 
disorder,  passed  a  decree  against  the  praying  to 
Angels,  and  leaving  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. All 
supplication,  prayer,  intercession,  and  thanksgiving 
is  to  be  addressed  to  the  Supreme  God,  through  the 
High  Priest  who  is  above  all  Angels,  the  Living  Word 
and  God.  .  .  .  Bu£  Angels  we  may  not  fitly  call  upon, 
since  we  have  not  obtained  a  knowledge  of  them  more 
than  human.^^  Origen.  contr.  Cels.  v.  4,  5.  Vid.  also 
for  similar  statements  Voss.  de  Idolatr.  i.  9.  These 
extracts  are  here  made  in  illustration  of  the  particular 
passage  of  Athan.  to  which  they  are  appended,  not  as  if 
they  contain  the  whole  doctrine  of  Origen,  Theodoret, 
or  S.  Chrysostom,  on  the  cuUus  Angelorum.  Of  course 
they  are  not  really  inconsistent  with  such  texts  as 
1  Tim.  V.  21,  Eccl.  v.  4. 

^  Elsewhere  Athan.  says  that  the  Angel  who  deli- 
vered Jacob  from  all  evil,^^  from  whom  he  asked  a 
blessing,  was  not  a  created  Angel,  but  the  Angel  of 
great  Counsel,  the  Word  of  God  Himself,  Orat.  iii.  §  12  ; 
but  he  says  shortly  afterwards  that  the  Angel  that 
appeared  to  Moses  in  the  Bush  was  not  the  God  of 
Abraham,  but  what  was  seen  was  an  Angel,  and  in  the 
Angel  Godspoke,'^  §  14;  vid.  Monitum  Boned,  in  Hilar. 
Trin.  lib.  iv.  Thus  Athan.  does  not  differ  from  Augus- 
tine, vid.  infr.  art.  Scrij)tiire  Passages,  No.  i.,  p.  266. 


12 


ANGELS. 


^  As  to  the  word  worship/^  as  denoting  the  cultus 
Angcloriun,  worship  is  a  very  wide  term,  and  has 
obviously  more  senses  than  one.  Thus  we  read  in  one 
passage  of  Scripture  that  all  the  congregation  .  .  . 
worshipped  the  Lord,  and  the  Ung'^  [David].  S.  Augus- 
tine, as  S.  Athanasius,  Orat.  ii.  §  23,  makes  the  charac- 
teristic of  divine  worship  to  consist  in  sacrifice.  No 
one  would  venture  to  say  that  sacrifice  was  due  to  any 
but  God.  Many  are  the  things  taken  from  divine 
worship  and  transferred  to  human  honours,  either 
through  excessive  humility  or  mischievous  adulation ; 
yet  without  giving  us  the  notion  that  those  to  whom 
they  were  transferred  were  not  men.  And  these  are 
said  to  be  honoured  and  venerated ;  or  were  worshipped, 
if  much  is  heaped  upon  them;  but  whoever  thought 
that  sacrifice  was  to  be  oS'ered,  except  to  Him  whom 
the  sacrificer  knew  or  thought  or  pretended  to  be  God 
August,  de  Civ.  Dei,  x.  4.  Whereas  you  have  called  so 
many  dead  men  gods,  why  are  ye  indignant  with  us,  who 
do  but  honour,  not  deify  the  martyrs,  as  being  God's 
martyrs  and  loving  servants  ?  .  .  .  That  they  even 
ofi'ered  libations  to  the  dead,  ye  certainly  know,  who 
venture  on  the  use  of  them  by  night  contrary  to  the 
laws.  .  .  .  But  we,  0  men,  assign  neither  sacrifices  nor 
even  libations  to  the  martyrs,  but  we  honour  them  as 
men  divine  and  divinely  beloved.''  Theodor.  contr. 
Gent.  viii.  pp.  908—910.  It  is  observable  that  incense 
was  burnt  before  the  Imperial  Statues,  vid.  art.  Im- 
perial Titles.  Nebuchadnezzar  offered  an  oblation  to 
Daniel,  after  the  interpretation  of  his  dream. 


ANTICHRIST. 


13 


ANTICHRIST. 

As  the  early  Christians,  in  obedience  to  our  Lord^s 
words,  were  ever  looking  out  for  His  second  coming, 
and  for  the  signs  of  it,  they  associated  it  with  every 
prominent  disturbance,  external  or  internal,  which 
interfered  with  the  peace  of  the  Church ;  with  every 
successive  persecution,  heretical  outbreak,  or  schism 
which  befell  it.  In  this,  too,  they  were  only  following 
the  guidance  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  who  told 
them  that  great  tribulation,^^  false  prophets,^^  dis- 
union, and  apostasy  and  at  length  Antichrist,^^ 
should  be  His  forerunners.  Also,  they  recollected 
S.  John^s  words,  Omnis  Spiritus  qui  solvit  Jesum, 
ex  Deo  non  est,  et  hie  est  Antichristus  de  quo 
audistis,  quoniam,  venit,^^  &c.  Hence  forerunner  of 
Antichrist  was  the  received  epithet  employed  by 
them  to  designate  the  successive  calamities  and 
threatenings  of  evil,  which  one  after  another  spread 
over  the  face  of  the  orbis  terrarum, 

^  Thus  we  have  found  S.  Athanasius  calKng  Arian- 
ism  ^Hhe  forerunner  of  Antichrist, Syn.  §  5,  7rp6SpofjLo<^, 
praBcursor;  vid.  also  Orat.  i.  §§  1  and  7;  Ap.  c.  Ar.  fin.; 
Hist.  Ar.  77;  Cyr.  Cat.  xv.  9 ;  Basil.  Ep.  264;  Hilar. 
Aux.  5,  no  distinction  being  carefully  drawn  between 
the  apostasy  and  the  Antichrist.  Constantius  is  called 
Antichrist  by  Athan.  Hist.  Arian.  67;  his  acts  are  the 
irpoolfjLLov  KoX  irapaaicevr]  of  Antichrist,  Hist.  Arian.  70, 


14  ANTICHRIST. 

tin.,  71  and  80.  Constantius  is  the  image,  eUcbv,  of 
Antichrist,  74  and  80,  and  shows  the  likeness,  o/xotco/Ma, 
of  the  malignity  of  Antichrist,  75.  Vid.  also  77. 
*^Let  Christ  be  expected,  for  Antichrist  is  in  posses- 
sion.^' Hilar,  contr.  Const,  init.,  also  5.  Speaking  of 
Auxentius,  the  Arian  Bishop  of  Milan,  he  says,  Of 
one  thing  I  warn  you,  beware  of  Antichrist;  it  is  ill 
that  .  .  .  your  veneration  for  God's  Church  lies  in 
houses  and  edifices.  .  .  .  Is  there  any  doubt  that  Anti- 
christ is  to  sit  in  these  ?  Mountains,  and  woods,  and 
lakes,  and  prisons,  and  pits  are  to  me  more  safe,''  &c., 
Contr.  Auxent.  12.  Lucifer,  calls  Constantius  ^^prae- 
cursor  Antichristi,"  p.  89 ;  possessed  with  the  spirit  of 
Antichrist,  p.  219;  friend  of  Antichrist,  p.  259.  Vid. 
also  Basil,  Ep.  264.  Again,  S.  Jerome,  writing  against 
Jovinian,  says  that  he  who  teaches  that  there  are  no 
differences  of  rewards  is  Antichrist,  ii.  21.  S.  Leo, 
alluding  to  1  John  iv.  10,  calls  Nestorius  and  Eutyches, 
'^Antichristi  praBcursores,"  Ep.  75,  p.  1022;  again, 
Antichrist  is  whoever  withstood  what  the  Church  has 
once  settled,  with  an  allusion  to  opposition  to  the  see 
of  S.  Peter,  Ep.  156,  c.  2.  Anastasius  speaks  of  the 
ten  horns  of  Monophysitism,  Hodeg.  8  and  24;  and 
calls  Severus  Antichrist,  for  usurping  the  judicial 
powers  of  the  Church,  ibid.  p.  92.  Vid.  also  Greg.  I. 
Ep.  vii.  33. 

^  The  great  passage  of  S.  Paul  about  the  airoaraaLay 
1  Tim.  iv.  1,  2,  is  taken  to  apply  to  the  Arians  in  Orat. 
i.  §  8,  cf.  ad  ^gypt.  §  20,  21 ;  but  the  Fathers  more 
commonly  refer  it  to  the  Oriental  sects  of  the  early 
centuries,  who  fulfilled  one  or  other  of  those  con- 


ANTICHRIST. 


15 


ditions  which,  it  specifies.  It  is  predicated  of  the 
Marcionists  by  Clement,  Strom,  iii.  6.  Of  the  Valen- 
tinians,  Epiph.  Haer.  31,  34.  Of  the  Montanists  and 
others,  ibid.  48,  8.  Of  the  Saturnilians  (according 
to  Huet),  Origen  in  Matt.  xiv.  16.  Of  apostolic 
heretics,  Cyril.  Cat.  iv.  27.  Of  Marcionites,  Valen- 
tinians,  and  Manichees,  Chrysost.  de  Virg.  5.  Of 
Gnostics  and  Manichees,  Theod.  Hser.  ii.  praef.  Of 
Encratites,  ibid.  v.  fin.  Of  Eutyches,  Ep.  Anon.  190 
(apud  Garner.  Diss.  v.  Theod.  p.  901).  Pseudo-Justin 
seems  to  consider  it  fulfilled  in  the  Catholics  of  the 
fifth  century,  as  being  Anti-pelagians,  Queest.  22  ; 
vid.  Bened.  note  in  loc.  Besides  Athanasius,  no  early 
author  by  whom  it  is  referred  to  the  Arians,  occurs 
to  the  writer  of  this,  except  S.  Alexander's  Letter  ap. 
Socr.  i.  6 ;  and,  if  he  may  hazard  the  conjecture,  there 
is  much  in  that  letter  like  Athan.^s  own  writing.  Vid. 
supr.  art.  Alexander. 


10 


APOSTLE. 


APOSTLE. 

'^The  Apostle'^  is  the  usual  title  of  S.  Paul  ia 
antiquity,  as  the  Philosopher^^  at  a  later  date  is 
appropriated  to  Arisfcotle.  ''When  'the  Apostle^  is 
mentioned/^  says  S.  Augustine,  "if  it  is  not  specified 
which,  Paul  only  is  understood,  because  he  is  more 
celebrated  from  the  number  of  his  Epistles,  and 
laboured  more  abundantly  than  all  the  rest,^^  ad 
Bonifac.  iii.  3.  E.g.  "And  this  is  what  Peter  has  said, 
'that  ye  may  be  partakers  in  a  divine  nature ;  ^  as  says 
also  the  Apostle,  '  know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  Temple 
of  God,' &c.  Orat.  i.  §  16.  Vid.  also  Enc.  supr. 
vol.  i.  p.  6;  Peer.  §§  15  and  17.  "The  Apostle 
himself,  the  Doctor  of  the  Gentiles,'^  Syn.  §§28  and  39. 
"John  saying  and  the  Apostle,^'  Orat-  i.  §  47. 

However,  S.  Peter  also  is  called  the  Apostle, 
Orat.  i.  §  47. 


ARIUS. 


17 


ARIUS. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  gain  a  clear  idea  of  the  cha- 
racter of  Arius.  Athanasius  speaks  as  if  his  theological 
song,  or  Thalia^  was  but  a  token  of  his  personal  laxity ; 
and  certainly  the  mere  fact  of  his  having  written  it 
seems  incompatible  with  any  remarkable  seriousness  and 
strictness.  He  drew  up  his  heresy  on  paper/^  Athan. 
says,  and  imitating,  as  if  on  a  festive  occasion  (co?  iv 
OoXio)  no  grave  writer,  but  the  Egyptian  Sotades,  in 
the  character  of  his  music,  he  writes  at  great  length,'' 
&c.  De  Syn.  §  15.  Again,  Orat.  i.  §§  2 — 5,  he 
calls  him  the  Sotadean  Arius ;  and  speaks  of  the 
dissolute  manners,^^  and  the  effeminate  tone,^^ 
and  the  jests  of  the  Thalia ;  a  poem  which,  he 
says  shortly  before,  is  not  even  found  among  the 
more  respectable  Greeks,  but  among  those  only  who 
sing  songs  over  their  wine,  with  noise  and  revel. ■'^  Vid. 
also  de  Sent.  D.  6.  Constantino  also,  after  the  "Ap6<; 
Apeue,  proceeds,  eirua^erco  Se  ere  rj  yovv  ^Acj^poSirr]^  ofjuXla, 
Epiph.  Haer.  69,  9  fin.  Socrates  too  says  that  the 
character  of  the  book  was  gross  and  dissolute.^^  Hist, 
i.  9.  The  Arian  Philostorgius  tells  us  that  ^^Arius  wrote 
songs  for  the  sea,  and  for  the  mill,  and  for  the  road,  and 
set  then  to  suitable  music,^^  Hist.  ii.  2.  It  is  remark- 
able that  Athanasius  should  say  the  Egyptian  Sotades, 
as  again  in  Sent.  D.  6.    There  were  two  Poets  of  the 

VOL.  II.  c 


18 


ARIUS. 


name;  one  a  writer  of  the  Middle  Comedy,  Athen. 
Deipn.  vii.  11  :  but  the  other,  who  is  here  spoken  of, 
was  a  native  of  Maronea  in  Crete,  according  to  Suidas 
(in  voc),  under  the  successors  of  Alexander,  Athen. 
xiv.  4.  He  wrote  in  Ionic  metre,  which  was  of  infamous 
name  from  the  subjects  to  which  he  and  others  applied 
it.  Vid.  Suid.  ibid.  Some  read  Sotadicos^^  for 
^^Socraticos,^^  Juv.  Satir.  ii.  10.  Vid.  also  Martial, 
Ep.  ii.  86.  The  characteristic  of  the  metre  was  the 
recurrence  of  the  same  cadence,  which  virtually 
destroyed  the  division  into  verses,  Turneb.  in  Quinct. 
i.  8,  and  thus  gave  the  composition  that  lax  and 
slovenly  air  to  which  Athanasius  alludes.  Horace^s 
Ode,  ^^Miserarum  est  neque  amori,''  &c.,  is  a  specimen  of 
this  metre,  and  some  have  called  it  Sotadic ;  but  Bentley 
shows  in  loc.  that  Sotades  wrote  in  the  Ionic  a  majore, 
and  that  his  verse  had  somewhat  more  of  system  than 
is  found  in  the  Ode  of  Horace.  Athenasus  implies  that 
all  Ionic  metres  were  called  Sotadic,  or  that  Sotades 
wrote  in  various  Ionic  metres.  The  Church  adopted 
the  Doric  music,  and  forbade  the  Ionic  and  Lydian. 
The  name  Thalia^'  commonly  belonged  to  convivial 
songs;  Martial  contrasts  the  ^Hasciva  Thalia  with 
^'carmina  sanctiora,^^  Epigr.  vii.  17.  Vid.  Thaliarchus, 
^Hhe  master  of  the  feast,^^  Herat.  Od.  i.  9.  This  would 
be  the  more  offensive  among  Christians  in  Athan.'s  day, 
in  proportion  to  the  keener  sensibilities  of  the  South, 
and  the  more  definite  ideas  which  music  seems  to  have 
conveyed  to  their  minds ;  and  more  especially  in  a  case 
where  the  metre  Arius  employed  had  obtained  so 
shocking  a  reputation,  and  was  associated  in  the  minds 


ARIUS. 


19 


of  Christians  with  the  deeds  of  darkness,  in  the  midst 
of  which  in  those  heathen  times  the  Church  lived  and 
bore  her  witness. 

Such  is  Athan/s  report,  but  Constantine  and  Epi- 
phanius  speak  of  Arius  in  very  different  terms,  yet  each 
in  his  own  way,  as  the  following  extracts  show.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  Constantine  is  only  declaiming,  for  his  whole 
invective  is  like  a  school  exercise  or  fancy  composition. 
Constantine  too  had  not  seen  Arius  at  the  time  of  this 
invective,  which  was  prior  to  the  Nicene  Council,  and 
his  account  of  him  is  inconsistent  with  itself,  for  he 
also  uses  the  very  strong  and  broad  language  about 
Arius  quoted  above.  Look  then,^^  he  says,  look  all 
men,  what  words  of  lament  he  is  now  professing,  being 
held  with  the  bite  of  the  serpent ;  how  his  veins  and 
flesh  are  possessed  with  poison,  and  are  in  a  ferment  of 
severe  pain ;  how  his  whole  body  is  wasted,  and  is  all 
withered  and  sad  and  pale  and  shaking,  and  fearfully 
emaciated.  How  hateful  to  see,  how  filthy  is  his  mass 
of  hair,  how  he  is  half  dead  all  over,  with  failing  eyes, 
and  bloodless  countenance,  and  woe-begone  !  so  that 
all  these  things  combining  in  him  at  once,  frenzy, 
madness,  and  folly,  for  the  continuance  of  the  com- 
plaint, have  made  thee  wild  and  savage.  But  not 
having  any  sense  what  bad  plight  he  is  in,  he  cries 
out,  ^  I  am  transported  with  delight,  and  I  leap  and 
skip  for  joy,  and  I  fly  :  ^  and  again,  with  boyish  im- 
petuosity, ^  Be  it  so,^  he  says,  ^we  are  lost.^  "  Harduin. 
Cone.  t.  i.  p.  457.  Perhaps  this  strange  account  may 
be  taken  to  illustrate  the  words  mania  and  ^^Ario- 
maniacs.''^    S.  Alexander  too  speaks  of  Arius^s  melan- 

c  2 


20 


ARIUS. 


cholic  temperament,  fjueXayxoy^'tKoU  r)piioaixev7]^  80^77? 
Kevri^.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  741.  S.  Basil  also  speaks 
of  the  Eunomians  as  ek  XafJbirpav  /j.€\ayxo\lav  irape- 
vexQ^vTm,  Contr.  Eun.  ii.  24.  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of 
the  Pneumatomachists  as  worse  than  )L6eXa7%oXc3z^Te9. 
De  Sp.  S.  41. 

Epiphanius's  account  of  Arius  is  as  follows  : — From 
elation  of  mind  the  old  man  swerved  from  the  mark. 
He  was  in  stature  very  tall,  downcast  in  visage,  with 
manners  like  a  wily  serpent,  captivating  to  every  guile- 
less heart  by  that  same  crafty  bearing.  For  ever  habited 
in  cloak  and  vest,  he  was  pleasant  of  address,  ever 
persuading  souls  and  flattering;  wherefore  what  was 
his  very  first  work  but  to  withdraw  from  the  Church  in 
one  body  as  many  as  seven  hundred  women  who  pro- 
fessed virginity  ?  Hser.  69,  3.  Arius  is  here  said  to 
have  been  tall ;  Athanasius,  on  the  other  hand,  would 
appear  to  have  been  short,  if  we  may  so  interpret 
Julianas  indignant  description  of  him,  /i.?;Se  avy]p,  ahX 
avdp(D'TriaK:o<;  €VT€\r}<;,  not  even  a  man,  but  a  common 
little  fellow.^^  Ep.  51.  Yet  S.  Gregory  Nazianzen 
speaks  of  him  as  ^^high  in  prowess  and  humble  in 
spirit,  mild,  meek,  full  of  sympathy,  pleasant  in  speech, 
more  pleasant  in  manners,  angelical  in  person^  more 
angelical  in  mind,  serene  in  his  rebukes,  instructive  in 
his  praises,^^  &c.  &c.  Orat.  21.  9.  There  is  no  proof 
that  S.  Gregory  had  ever  seen  him. 


THE  ARIANS. 


21 


THE  ARIANS. 

1.  Their  Ethical  Characteristics. 

When  we  consider  how  grave  and  reverent  was  tlie 
temper  of  the  Ante-Nicene  Churchy  how  it  concealed 
its  sacred  mysteries  from  the  world  at  large,  how 
writers  such  as  Tertullian  make  the  absence  of  such  a 
strict  discipline  the  very  mark  of  heresy,  and  that  a 
vulgar  ostentation  and  profaneness  was  the  prominent 
charge  brought  against  the  heretic  Paul  of  Samosata, 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  we  need  no  more  ready  evidence 
or  note  against  the  Arian  party  than  our  finding  that 
the  ethical  character,  which  is  in  history  so  intimately 
associated  with  Paul  and  the  heretics  generally  of  the 
first  three  centuries,  is  the  badge  of  Arianism  also. 

1.  Athan.  in  various  passages  of  his  Theological 
Treatises  refers  to  it,  and  it  is  one  of  the  reasons  why 
he  speaks  so  familiarly  of  their  madness/^  What 
pressed  on  us  so  much/^  he  says  of  the  Councils  of 
Seleucia  and  Ariminum,  '^was  that  the  whole  world 
should  be  thrown  into  confusion,  and  those  who  then 
bore  the  profession  of  ecclesiastics  should  run  about  far 
and  near,  seeking  forsooth  how  best  to  learn  to  believe 
in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Certainly,  if  they  were 
believers  already,  they  would  not  have  been  seeking, 
as  though  they  were  not.  And  to  the  catechumens, 
this  was  no  small  scandal;  but  to  the  heathen,  it  was 


22 


THE  ARIANS. 


something  more  than  common,  and  even  furnished 
broad  merriment,  that  Christians,  as  if  waking  out  of 
sleep  at  this  time  of  day,  should  be  making  out  how 
they  were  to  believe  concerning  Christ,  while  their 
professed  clergy,  though  claiming  deference  from  their 
flocks,  as  teachers,  were  unbelievers  on  their  own  show- 
ing, in  that  they  were  seeking  what  they  had  not/^ 
Syn.  §  2. 

The  heathen  Ammianus  supports  this  complaint  in 
the  well-known  passage  which  tells  of  the  troops  of 
Bishops  hurrying  to  and  fro  at  the  public  expense,^^ 
and  the  Synods,  in  their  efforts  to  bring  over  the 
religion  everywhere  to  their  side,  being  the  ruin  of  the 
posting  establishments/^  Hist.  xxi.  16.  Again,  ^^The 
spectacle  proceeded  to  that  pitch  of  indecency,^^  says 
Eusebius,  ^Hhat  at  length,  in  the  very  midst  of  the 
theatres  of  the  unbelievers,  the  solemn  matters  of 
divine  teaching  were  subjected  to  the  basest  mockery/^ 
In  Vit.  Const,  ii.  61. 

Also  Athan.,  after  speaking  of  the  Arian  tenet  that 
our  Lord  was  once  on  His  probation  and  might  have 
fallen,  says,  This  is  what  they  do  not  shrink  from  con- 
versing about  in  fall  market/'  Orat.  i.  §  37.  And  again, 
"  When  they  commenced  this  heresy,  they  used  to  go 
about  with  dishonest  crafty  phrases  which  they  had  got 
together ;  nay,  up  to  this  time  some  of  them,  when  they 
fall  in  with  boys  in  the  market-place,  question  them, 
not  out  of  divine  Scripture,  but  thus,  as  if  bursting  out 
with  tlte  abundance  of  their  heart : — '  He  who  is,  did 
He,  from  Him  who  is,  make  him  who  was  not,  or  him 
who  was  ?  ' Orat.  i.  §  22. 


THE  ARIANS. 


28 


Alexander  speaks  of  the  interference^  even  by  legal 
process,  against  himself,  of  disobedient  women^  Sl 
evTV')(^ia^  yvvaiKapicov  ard/crcov  a  rjTrdrrjcrav,  and  of  the 
busy  and  indecent  gadding  about  of  the  younger,  i/c 
Tov  7r€pLTpo')(^d^€LV  ircLCTav  d/yviav  da/jbivco^;.  A  p.  Theod. 
Hist.  i.  3^  p.  730 ;  also  p.  747;  also  of  the  men^s  buffoon 
conversation,  p.  731.  Socrates  says  that  in  the 
Imperial  Court  the  officers  of  the  bedchamber  held 
disputes  with  the  women,  and  in  the  city  in  every 
house  there  was  a  war  of  dialectics/^  Hist.  ii.  2.  This 
mania  raged  especially  in  Constantinople ;  and  S.  Gre- 
gory Nazianzen  speaks  of  these  women  as  Jezebels 
in  as  thick  a  crop  as  hemlock  in  a  field.^^  Orat.  35.  3. 
He  speaks  of  the  heretics  as  aiming  at  one  thing 
only,  how  to  make  good  or  refute  points  of  argument,'^ 
making  every  market-place  resound  with  their  words, 
and  spoiling  every  entertainment  with  their  trifling 
and  offensive  talk/^  Orat.  27.  2.  The  most  remarkable 
testimony  of  the  kind^  though  not  concerning  Constan- 
tinople, is  given  by  S.  Gregory  Nyssen,  and  often 
quoted,  Men  of  yesterday  and  the  day  before,  mere 
mechanics,  off-hand  dogmatists  in  theology,  servants 
too  and  slaves  that  have  been  flogged,  runaways  from 
servile  work,  are  solemn  with  us  and  philosophical 
about  things  incomprehensible.  .  .  .  With  such  the 
whole  city  is  full ;  its  smaller  gates,  forums,  squares, 
thoroughfares ;  the  clothes-venders,  the  money-lenders, 
the  victuallers.  Ask  about  pence,  and  he  will  discuss 
the  Generate  and  Ingenerato ;  inquire  the  price  of 
bread,  he  answers.  Greater  is  the  Father,  and  the  Son 
is  subject ;   say  that  a  bath  would  suit  you,  and  he 


24 


THE  ARIANS. 


defines  that  the  Son  is  made  out  of  nothing/^  t.  2,  p. 
898.  (de  Deitate  Fil.  &c.) 

Arius  set  the  example  of  all  this  in  his  Thalia; 
Leontius,  Eudoxius^  and  Aetius,  in  various  ways^ 
followed  it  faithfully. 

2.  Another  characteristic  of  the  Arian  party  was 
their  changeableness^  insincerity^  and  want  of  prin- 
ciple (vid.  Chameleons),  This  was  owing  to  their  fear 
of  the  Emperor  and  of  the  Christian  populations,  which 
hindered  them  speaking  out ;  also,  to  the  difficulty  of 
keeping  their  body  together  in  opinion,  and  the  neces- 
sity they  were  in  to  deceive  one  party  and  to  please 
another,  if  they  were  to  maintain  their  hold  upon  the 
Church.  Athanasius  observes  on  their  reluctance  to 
speak  out,  challenging  them  to  present  the  heresy 
naked,^^  de  Sent.  Dionys.  2,  init,  No  one,^^  he  says 
elsewhere,  puts  a  light  under  a  bushel;  let  them  show 
the  world  their  heresy  naked.-^^  Ad.  Ep.  Mg.  18.  Vid. 
ibid.  10.  In  like  manner,  Basil  says  that  though  Arius 
was,  in  faith,  really  like  Eunomius  (contr.  Eunom. 
i.  4),  Aetius  his  master  was  the  first  to  teach  openly 
{(j)av€pco<;)  that  the  Father^s  substance  was  unlike, 
dvojbbOLo^;,  the  Son^s.  Ibid.  i.  1.  Epiphanius  too,  Hser. 
76,  p.  949,  seems  to  say  that  the  elder  Arians  held 
the  divine  generation  in  a  sense  in  which  Aetius  did 
not ;  that  is,  they  were  not  boldly  consistent  and  definite 
as  he  was.  Athan.  de  Decret.  §  7,  enumerates  some  of 
the  ^;ttempts  of  the  Arians  to  find  some  theory  short  of 
orthodoxy,  yet  short  of  that  extreme  heresy,  on  the 
other  hand,  which  they  felt  ashamed  to  avow. 

The  Treatise  De  Synodis,  above  translated,  supplies 


THE  ARIANS. 


25 


abundant  proof  of  their  artifices  and  shuffling.  (Vid. 
art.  Sypocrites.) 

3.  Cruelty,  as  in  the  instance  of  George  of  Cappadocia 
and  Macedonius  of  Constantinople,  is  another  charge 
which  falls  heavily  on  both  Arians  and  Semi-Arians. 

In  no  long  time/^  Athan.  says,  anticipating  their 
known  practice,  de  Decret.  §  2,  ^'  they  will  be  turning 
to  outrage. As  to  the  Council  of  Tyre,  a.d.  335,  he 
asks,  Apol.  contr.  Arian.  §  8,  How  venture  they  to 
call  that  a  Council  in  which  a  Count  presided,  and  an 
executioner  was  present,  and  a  registrar  [or  jailer] 
introduced  us  instead  of  the  deacons  of  the  Church  ? 
Vid.  also  §  10  and  45  ;  Orat.  ii.  §  43 ;  Ep.  Encycl.  §  5. 
Against  employing  violence  in  religious  matters,  vid. 
Hist.  Arian.  §  33,  67.  (Hil.  ad  Const,  i.  2.)  On  the 
other  hand,  he  observes,  that  at  Nicaea,  it  was  not 
necessity  which  drove  the  judges  to  their  decision, 
'^but  all  vindicated  the  truth  from  deliberate  purpose. 
Ad  Ep.  Mg.  13. 

4.  They  who  did  not  scruple  to  use  force  were 
consistent  m  their  use  of  bribes  also.  S.  Athanasius 
speaks  of  them  as  ScopoSoKot,  and  of  the  K€p8o<;  t^9 
^iKo')(^priiJLaTLa<;  which  influenced  them,  and  of  the 
irpodTaaia^  (piXcov.  Orat.  i.  §§  8,  10,  and  53;  also 
ii.  §  43. 

And  so  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  the  exemptions  from 
taxes  which  Constantius  granted  to  the  Clergy  as  a 
bribe  for  them  to  Arianize  :  You  concede  taxes  as 
Caesar,  thereby  to  invite  Christians  to  a  denial ;  you 
remit  what  is  your  own,  that  we  may  lose  what  is 
God^s,^^    contr.    Const.  10.     Again,   he   speaks  of 


26 


THE  ARIANS. 


Constantius  as  hostem  blandientem,  qui  non  dorsa 
csedit,  sed  ventrem  palpat,  non  proscribit  ad  vitam,  sed 
ditat  in  mortem,  non  caput  gladio  desecat,  sed  animam 
auro  occidit/'  Ibid.  5.  Vid.  Constant,  in  loc.  Liberius 
says  the  same,  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  13.  And  S.  Gregory 
Naz.  speaks  of  (\)LXo^vaov<^  fjuaXkov  rj  (f)L\oxpio-TOV^. 
Orat.  21.  21.  It  is  true  that,  Ep.  Mg.  22,  Athan. 
contrasts  the  Arians  with  the  Meletians  in  this  respect, 
as  if,  unlike  the  latter,  the  Arians  were  not  influenced 
by  secular  views.  But  there  were,  as  was  natural,  two 
classes  of  men  in  the  heretical  party  : — the  fanatical 
class  who  began  the  heresy  and  were  its  real  life,  such 
as  Arius,  and  afterwards  the  Anomoeans,  in  whom  mis- 
belief was  a  mania  and  the  Eusebians,  who  cared 
little  for  a  theory  of  doctrine  or  consistency  of  profession, 
compared  with  their  own  aggrandizement.  With  these 
must  be  included  numbers  who  conformed  to  Arianism 
lest  they  should  sufl'er  temporal  loss. 

Athan.  says,  that  after  Easebius  (Nicomed.)  had 
taken  up  the  patronage  of  the  heresy,  he  made  no  pro- 
gress till  he  had  gained  the  Court,^^  Hist.  Arian.  66, 
showing  that  it  was  an  act  of  external  power  by  which 
Arianism  grew,  not  an  inward  movement  in  the  Church, 
which  indeed  loudly  protested  against  the  Emperor^s 
proceeding,  &c.    (Vid.  CatJioUc  Church.) 


2.  The  Arian  Leaders, 

Arius  himself  refers  his  heresy  to  the  teaching  of 
Lucian,  a  presbyter  of  Antioch  (Theod.  Hist.  i.  4  and 


THE  ARIANS. 


27 


5)^  who  seems  to  have  been  the  head  of  a  theological 
party,  and  a  friend  of  Paulus  the  heretical  Bishop,  and 
out  of  communion  during  the  time  of  three  Bishops  who 
followed.  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  who  seems  to  have 
held  the  Arian  tenets  to  their  full  extent,  is  claimed  by 
Arius  as  his  fellow-Lucianist/^  Pronounced  Arians 
also  were  the  Lucianists  Leontius  and  Eudoxius. 
Asterius,  another  of  his  pupils,  did  not  go  further  than 
Semi-Arianism,  without  perhaps  perfect  consistency ; 
nor  did  Lucian  himself,  if  the  Creed  of  the  Dedication 
(a.d.  341)  comes  from  him,  as  many  critics  have  held. 
He  died  a  martyr^ s  death.  (Vid.  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  96, 
Syn.  §  23,  and  notes,) 

Asterius  is  the  foremost  writer  on  the  Arian  side,  on 
its  start.  He  was  by  profession  a  sophist ;  he  lapsed 
and  sacrificed,  as  Athan.  tells  us,  in  the  persecution  of 
Maximian.  His  work  in  defence  of  the  heresy  was 
answered  by  Marcellus  of  Ancyra,  to  whom  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  in  turn  replied.  Athan.  quotes  or  refers  to  it 
frequently  in  the  treatises  translated  supr.  Vid.  Deer. 
§  8,  20;  Syu.  §  18—20;  Orat.  i.  §  30,  31  ;  ii.  §  24.  fin., 
28,  37,  40;  iii.  §  2,  60 ;  Nicgu.  13,  28;  Arim.  23 
and  24;  Disc,  47,  58,  60,  135,  139,  151,  155,  226, 
according  to  Bened.  Ed.,  and  according  to  this  trans- 
lation respectively.  Asterius  and  Eusebius  of  Caesarea 
seem  to  be  Semi- Arians  of  the  same  level. 

We  must  be  on  our  guard  against  confusing  the  one 
Eusebius  with  the  other.  He  of  Nicomedia  was  an 
Arian,  a  man  of  the  world,  the  head  of  the  Arian 
party  ;  he  of  Ca)sarea  was  the  historian,  to  whom  we 
are  so  much  indebted — learned,  moderate,  liberal,  the 


28 


THE  ARIANS. 


private  friend  of  Constantine^  a  Semi-Arian.  (Vid. 
infr.,  art.  Semi-Arianism,  and  Eusebius,) 

The  leading  Arians  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council, 
besides  Eusebius  Nicom.^  were  Narcissus,  Patrophilus, 
Maris,  Paulinus,  Theodotus,  Athanasius  of  Nazarba, 
and  George  (Syn.  §  17). 

Most  of  these  original  Arians  were  attacked  in  the 
work  of  Marcellus  which  Eusebius  (Oassar.)  answers. 
"  Now/^  says  the  Caesarean  Eusebius,  he  replies  to 
Asterius,  now  to  the  great  Eusebius/^  [of  Nicomedia,] 

and  then  he  turns  upon  that  man  of  God,  that  indeed 
thrice  blessed  person,  Paulinus  (of  Tyre).  Then  he  goes 
to  war  with  Origen.  .  .  .  Next  he  marches  out  against 
Narcissus,  and  pursues  the  other  Eusebius,^^  i.e.  himself. 

In  a  word,  he  counts  for  nothing  all  the  Ecclesiastical 
Fathers,  being  satisfied  with  no  one  but  himself.^^ 
Contr.  Marc.  i.  4.  Vid.  art.  Marcellus,  There  is  little 
to  be  said  of  Maris  and  Theodotus.  Nazarba  is  more 
commonly  called  Anazarbus,  and  is  in  Cilicia. 

As  is  observed  elsewhere,  there  were  three  parties 
among  the  Arians  from  the  first : — the  Arians  proper, 
afterwards  called  Anomoeans ;  the  Semi-Arian  reaction 
from  them ;  and  the  Court  party,  called  Eusebians  or 
Acacians,  from  their  leaders,  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia 
and  Acacius  of  Caesarea,  which  sometimes  sided  with 
the  Semi-Arians,  sometimes  with  the  Arians  proper, 
sometimes  attempted  a  compromise  of  Scripture  terms. 
The  six  named  by  Athanasius  as  the  chief  movers  in 
the  Bipartite  Council  of  Seleucia  and  Ariminum,  were 
TJrsacius,  Valens,  Germinius,  Acacius,  Eudoxius,  and 
Patrophilus.    He  numbers  also  among  the  Bishops  at 


THE  AEIANS. 


29 


Ariminum^  Auxentius^  Demopliilus^  and  Caius.  And  at 
Seleucia^  Uranius^  Leontius^  Theodotus,  Evagrius,  and 
George.  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  was  a  kinsman  of  the 
Imperial  family  and  tutor  to  Julian.  He  was^  as  has 
been  already  said,  a  fellow-disciple  with  Arius  of  Lucian. 
He  was  Bishop,  first  of  Berytus,  then  of  Nicomedia, 
and  at  length  of  Constantinople.  He  received  Arius 
with  open  arms,  on  his  expulsion  from  the  Alexandrian 
Church,  put  himself  at  the  head  of  his  followers,  cor- 
rected their  polemical  language,  and  used  his  great 
influence  with  Constantino  and  Constantius  to  secure 
the  triumph  of  the  heresy.  He  died  about  the  year 
343,  and  was  succeeded  in  the  political  leadership  of 
the  Eusebians  by  Acacius  and  Valens. 

George,  whom  Athanasius,  Gregory  Naz.,  and  So- 
crates, call  a  Cappadocian,  was  born,  according  to  Am- 
mianus,  in  Epiphania  of  Cilicia,  at  a  fuller^s  mill.  He 
was  appointed  pork-contractor  to  the  army,  Syn.  §  12, 
Hist.  Arian.  75,  Naz.  Orat.  21.16,  and,  being  detected  in 
defrauding  the  government,  he  fled  to  Egypt.  Naz.  Orat. 
21.  16.  How  he  became  acquainted  with  the  Eusebian 
party  does  not  appear.  Sozomen  says  he  recommended 
himself  to  the  see  of  Alexandria  instead  of  Athan.  by  his 
zeal  for  Arianism  and  his  to  Spaarypioi/ ;  and  Gregory 
calls  him  the  hand  of  the  heresy,  as  Acacius  (?)  was  the 
tongue.  Orat.  21.  21.  He  made  himself  so  obnoxious 
to  the  Alexandrians,  that  in  the  reign  of  Julian  he 
was  torn  to  pieces  in  a  rising  of  the  heathen  populace. 
He  had  laid  capital  informations  against  many  persons 
of  the  place,  and  he  tried  to  persuade  Constantius  that, 
as  the  successor  of  Alexander  its  founder,  he  was  pro- 


30 


THE  ARIANS. 


prietor  of  the  soil  and  had  a  claim  upon  the  houses 
built  on  it.  Ammian.  xxii.  11.  Epiphanius  tells  us, 
Hser.  76,  1,  that  he  made  a  monopoly  of  the  nitre  of 
Egypt,  farmed  the  beds  of  papyrus,  and  the  salt  lakes, 
and  even  contrived  a  profit  from  the  undertakers.  His 
atrocious  cruelties  to  the  Catholics  are  well  known. 
Yet  he  seems  to  have  collected  a  choice  library  of 
philosophers  and  poets  and  Christian  writers,  which 
Julian  seized  on.  Vid.  Pithaeus  in  loc.  Ammian. ;  also 
Gibbon,  ch.  23. 

Acacius  was  a  pupil  of  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  and 
succeeded  him  in  the  see  of  Caesarea  in  Palestine.  He 
inherited  his  library,  and  is  ranked  by  S.  Jerome  among 
the  most  learned  commentators  on  Scripture.  Both 
Sozomen  and  Philostorgius  speak,  though  in  different 
ways,  of  his  great  talents.  He  seems  to  have  taken  up, 
as  his  weapon  in  controversy,  the  objection  that  the 
ofjLoovaLov  was  not  a  word  of  Scripture,  which  is  in- 
directly suggested  by  Eusebius  (Caesar.)  in  his  letter  to 
his  people,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  59.  His  formula  was  the 
vague  o/jLOLov  (like),  as  the  Anomoean  was  avojxoLov 
(unlike),  as  the  Semi-Arian  was  ofiocovo-Lov  (like  in  sub- 
stance), and  the  orthodox  ofjuoovaLov  (one  in  substance). 
However,  like  most  of  his  party,  his  changes  of  opinion 
were  considerable.  At  one  time,  after  professing  the 
Kara  Trdvra  ofJuoLov,  and  even  the  t?)9  avrrj^  ovaLa^;,  Soz. 
iv.  22,  he  at  length  avowed  the  Anomoean  doctrine. 
Ultimately,  after  Constantius^s  death,  he  subscribed 
the  Nicene  formula.  Vid.  Arians  of  the  Fourth 
Century,'^  p.  275,  4th  ed. 

Valens,  Bishop  of  Mursa,  and  Ursacius,  Bishop  of 


THE  ARIANS. 


31 


Singidou,  are  generally  mentioned  together.  They 
were  pupils  of  Arius,  and^  as  such,  are  called  young  by 
Athan.  ad  Episc.  Mg.  7 ;  and  in  Apol.  contr-  Arian. 
§  13,  young  in  years  and  mind ;  by  Hilary,  ad 
Const,  i.  5,  imperitis  et  improbis  duobus  adolescenti- 
bus  and  by  the  Council  of  Sardica,  ap.  Hilar.  Fragm. 
ii.  12.  They  first  appear  at  the  Council  of  Tyre,  a.d. 
335.  The  Council  of  Sardica  deposed  them ;  in  349 
they  publicly  retracted  their  charges  against  Atha- 
nasius,  who  has  preserved  their  letters.  Apol.  contr. 
Arian.  58.  Valens  was  the  more  prominent  of  the 
two;  he  was  a  favourite  Bishop  of  Constantius,  an 
extreme  Arian  in  his  opinions,  and  the  chief  agent  at 
Ariminum  in  effecting  the  lapse  of  the  Latin  Fathers. 

Germinius  was  made  Bishop  of  Sirmium  by  the 
Eusebians  iu  351,  instead  of  Photinus,  whom  they 
deposed  for  a  kind  of  Sabellianism.  However,  in  spite 
of  his  Arianism,  he  was  obliged  in  358  to  sign  the 
Semi-Arian  formula  of  Ancyra ;  yet  he  was  an  active 
Eusebian  again  at  Ariminum.  At  a  later  date  he 
approached  very  nearly  to  Catholicism. 

Eudoxius  is  said  to  have  been  a  pupil  of  Lucian, 
Arius^s  master,  though  the  dates  scarcely  admit  of  it, 
Eustathius,  Catholic  Bishop  of  Antioch,  whom  the 
Eusebians  subsequently  deposed,  refused  to  admit  him 
into  orders.  Afterwards  he  was  made  Bishop  of  Ger- 
manicia  in  Syria,  by  his  party.  He  was  present  at 
the  Council  of  Antioch  in  341,  the  Dedication,  vid. 
not.  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  94,  and  he  carried  into  the  West, 
in  345,  the  fifth  Confession,  called  the  Long,  fiaKpoa- 
T6^o9,  Syn.  §  2G.    He  afterwards  passed  in  succession 


32 


THE  ARIANS. 


to  the  sees  of  Antiocli  and  Constantinople,  and  baptised 
tlie  Emperor  Valens  into  the  Arian  confession. 

Patrophilus  was  one  of  the  original  Arian  party,  and 
took  share  in  all  their  principal  acts,  but  there  is  no- 
thing very  distinctive  in  his  history.  Sozomen  assigns 
to  the  above  six  Bishops,  of  whom  he  was  one,  the 
scheme  of  dividing  the  Council  into  two,  Hist.  iv.  16  ; 
Valens  undertaking  to  manage  the  Latins,  Acacius  the 
Greeks. 

There  were  two  Arian  Bishops  of  Milan  of  the  name 
of  Auxentius,  but  little  is  known  of  them  besides.  S. 
Hilary  wrote  against  the  elder;  the  other  came  into 
collision  with  S.  Ambrose.  Demophilus,  Bishop  of 
Berea,  was  one  of  those  who  carried  the  Long  Confes- 
sion^^ into  the  West,  though  Athan.  only  mentions 
Eudoxius,  Martyrius,  and  Macedonius,  Syn.  §  26.  He 
was  afterwards  claimed  by  Aetius,  as  agreeing  with  him. 
Of  Caius,  an  Illyrian  Bishop,  nothing  is  known  except 
that  he  sided  throughout  with  the  Arian  party. 

Euzoius  was  one  of  the  Arian  Bishops  of  Antioch, 
and  baptised  Constantius  before  his  death.  He  had 
been  excommunicated  with  Arius  in  Egypt  and  at 
Nicsea,  and  was  restored  with  him  to  the  Church  at  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem.  He  succeeded  at  Antioch  S. 
Meletius,  who,  on  being  placed  in  that  see  by  the  Arians, 
professed  orthodoxy,  and  was  forthwith  banished  by 
them. 

The  leaders  of  the  Semi- Arians,  if  they  are  on  the 
rise  of  the  heresy  to  be  called  a  party,  were  in  the  first 
instance  Asterius  and  Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  of  whom  I 
have  already  spoken,  and  shall  speak  again.  Semi- 


THE  ARIANS. 


33 


Arianism  was  at  first  a  shelter  and  evasion  for  pure 
Arianism,  or  at  a  later  date  it  was  a  reaction  from  the 
Anomoean  enormities.  The  leading  Semi-Arians  of 
the  later  date  were  Basil,  Mark,  Eustathius,  Eleusius, 
Meletius,  and  Macedonius.  Basil,  who  is  considered 
their  head,  wrote  against  Marcellus,  and  was  placed  by 
the  Arians  in  his  see ;  he  has  little  place  in  history  till 
the  date  of  the  Council  of  Sardica,  which  deposed  him. 
Constantius,  however,  stood  his  friend  till  the  beginning 
of  the  year  360,  when  Acacius  supplanted  him  in  the 
Imperial  favour,  and  he  was  banished  into  Illyricum. 
This  was  a  month  or  two  later  than  the  date  at  which 
Athan.  wrote  his  first  draught  or  edition  of  his  De  Syno^ 
dis.  He  was  condemned  upon  charges  of  tyranny  and 
the  like,  but  Theodoret  speaks  highly  of  his  correctness 
of  life,  and  Sozomen  of  his  learning  and  eloquence. 
Vid.  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  20;  Soz.  ii.  33.  A  very  little 
conscientiousness,  or  even  decency  of  manners,  would 
put  a  man  in  strong  relief  with  the  great  Arian  party 
which  surrounded  the  Court,  and  a  very  great  deal 
would  not  have  been  enough  to  secure  him  against  their 
unscrupulous  slanders.  Athan.  reckons  him  among 
those  who  are  not  far  from  accepting  even  the  phrase, 
'  One  in  substance,'  in  what  he  has  written  concerning 
the  faith/'  vid.  Syn.  §  41.  A  favourable  account  of 
him  will  be  found  in  ^^The  Arians,''  &c.,  ed.  4,  p.  300, 
&c.,  where  vid.  also  a  notice  of  the  others.  Of  Mace- 
donius little  is  known  except  his  cruelties.  Vid.  The 
Arians,"  p.  311. 

The  Anomceans,  with  whose  history  this  work  is 
scarcely  concerned,  had  for  their  leaders  Aetius  and 

VOL.  II.  D 


34 


THE  ARIANS. 


Eunomius.  Of  these  Aetius  was  the  first  to  carry  out 
Arianism  in  its  pure  logical  form^  as  Eunomius  was 
its  principal  apologist.  He  was  born  in  humble  life, 
and  was  at  first  a  practitioner  in  medicine.  After  a 
time  he  became  a  pupil  of  the  Arian  Paulinus ;  then 
the  guest  of  Athanasius  of  Nazarba ;  then  the  pupil  of 
Leontius  of  Antioch,  who  ordained  him  deacon,  and 
afterwards  deposed  him.  This  was  in  350.  In  351  he 
seems  to  have  held  a  dispute  with  Basil  of  Ancyra,  at 
Sirmium,  as  did  Photinus;  in  the  beginning  of  360  he 
was  formally  condemned  in  that  Council  of  Constan- 
tinople which  confirmed  the  Creed  of  Ariminum^  and 
at  the  time  when  Eudoxius  had  been  obliged  to  anathe- 
matise his  confession  of  faith.  This  was  at  the  time 
Athan.  wrote  the  Be  Syn. 

3.  Arian  Tenets  and  Reasonings. 

^  The  idea  of  Sonship  includes  in  it  two  main  rela- 
tions viewed  as  regards  paternity^  non-priority  of 
existence  and  community  of  nature.  As  used  in 
theology,  it  is  an  analogous  and  indirect  illustration 
(vid.  Illustrations)  of  the  Divine  Truth  which  is  the 
cardinal  doctrine  of  Eevelation,  and  what  has  to  be 
determined  is  the  special  aspect  under  which  we  are 
intended  to  view  it.  For  instance,  it  may  be  argued 
that,  a  son  being  junior  in  age  to  his  father,  and  having 
a  beginning,  our  Lord  is  not  eternal,  but  a  creature ; 
or  on  the  contrary,  as  the  Catholic  Church,  as  following 
Scripture,  has  ever  taught,  that,  as  the  Son  belongs  to 
God^s  very  essence  and  being,  therefore,  if  God  is 
from  eternity  uncreate,  so  is  He. 


THE  AEIANS. 


35 


T[  As  God  created  the  world  out  of  nothing  by  an 
external^  so  He  gave  birth  to  the  Son  out  of  Himself 
by  an  internal ;  and  if  this  divine  generation  be^  as  it 
is^  incomprehensible^  so  also  confessedly  is  the  divine 
creation. 

^  The  Arians  refused  to  our  Lord  the  name  of  God, 
except  in  the  sense  in  which  they  called  Him  Word 
and  Wisdom,  not  as  denoting  His  nature  and  essence, 
but  as  epithets  really  belonging  to  the  Supreme  Being 
alone  or  to  His  attributes,  though  from  grace  or  by 
privilege  transferred  by  Him  in  an  improper  sense  to 
the  creature.  In  this  sense  the  Son  could  claim  to  be 
called  God,  but  in  no  other. 

%  The  main  argument  of  the  Arians  was  that  our  Lord 
was  a  Son,  and  therefore  was  not  eternal,  but  of  a 
substance  which  had  a  beginning.  With  this  Arius 
started  in  his  dispute  with  Alexander.  Arius,  a  man 
not  without  dialectic  skill,  thinking  that  the  Bishop 
was  introducing  the  doctrine  of  Sabellius  the  Libyan, 
out  of  contention  fell  off  into  the  opinion  diametrically 
opposite,  ....  and  he  says,  ^  If  the  Father  begot  the 
Son,  he  that  was  begotten  had  a  beginning  of  existence  ; 
and  from  this  it  is  plain  that  once  the  Son  was  not ; 
and  it  follows  of  necessity  that  He  had  His  subsistence 
out  of  nothing/ Socr.  i.  5.  Accordingly,  Athanasius 
says  (in  substance)  early  in  his  Deer.,  Having  argued 
with  them  as  to  the  meaning  of  their  own  selected  term, 
'  Son,^  let  us  go  on  to  others,  which  on  their  very  face 
make  for  us,  such  as  Word,  Wisdom,  &c.^^ 

%  In  what  sense  then  was  Son  to  be  predicated  of 
the  Divine  Nature  ?    The  Catholics  said  that  the  true 

D  2 


36 


THE  ARIANS. 


meaning  of  tlie  word  was  consubstantiality  (co-essenti- 
ality) with  the  Father,  whereas  the  point  of  posteriority 
to  the  Father  depended  on  a  condition,  time^  which 
could  not  exist  in  the  instance  of  God. 

IT  But  the  Arians  persisted,  maintaining  that  a  son 
has  his  orig-in  of  existence  from  his  father :  what  has 
an  origin  has  a  beginning ;  what  has  a  beginning 
is  not  from  eternity ;  what  is  not  from  eternity  is  not 
God;  forgetting,  first,  that  origination  and  beginning 
are  not  convertible  terms,  and  that  the  idea  of  a  begin- 
ning is  not  bound  up  with  the  idea  of  an  origin ;  and 
secondly,  that  a  son  not  only  has  his  origin  of  existence 
from  his  father,  but  also  his  nature,  and  all  that  is 
proper  to  his  nature. 

IT  The  Arians  went  on  to  maintain  that  to  suppose  a 
true  Son,  was  to  think  of  God  irreverently,  as  imply- 
ing division,  change,  composition,  &c.  The  Catholics 
replied  that  the  notion  of  materiality  was  quite  as 
foreign  from  the  Divine  Essence  as  time,  and  as  a 
Divine  Sonship  could  be  eternal,  in  like  manner 
it  implied  neither  composition  nor  development, 
o'Vfji/3€^r]Ko^,  TrepiBoXr]  or  irpol^okri, 

IT  The  Arians,  moreover,  argued  in  behalf  of  their 
characteristic  tenet  from  the  inferiority  necessarily 
involved  in  the  very  idea  of  a  Son.  But  since  He  was 
distinct  from  His  Father,  and  inferior.  He  was  not  God ; 
and,  if  not  God,  then  He  was  created,  even  though  a 
Son.  Sonship  was  a  mere  quality  or  characteristic 
bestowed  upon  a  creature.  The  Catholics,  in  answer, 
denied  that  a  son  was  in  his  nature  inferior  to  his  father ; 
just  the  reverse;  and  the  question  here  simply  was  about 


THE  ARIANS. 


37 


our  Lord^s  nature^  whether  it  was  divine^  whether  He 
was  of  one^  of  the  same^  nature  with  the  Father. 

IT  Though  the  Arians  would  not  allow  to  Catholics 
that  our  Lord  was  Son  by  nature,  and  maintained  that 
the  word  implied  a  beginning  of  existence,  they  were  un- 
willing to  say  that  He  was  Son  merely  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  are  sons^  though^  as  Athan.  contends^  they 
necessarily  tended  to  this  conclusion,  as  soon  as  they 
receded  from  the  Catholic  view.  Thus  Arius  said  that 
He  was  a  creature,  but  not  as  one  of  the  creatures/^ 
Orat.  ii.  §  19.  Valens  at  Ariminum  said  the  same. 
Jerom.  adv.  Lucifer.  18.  Hilary  says,  that,  not  daring 
directly  to  deny  that  He  was  God,  the  Arians  merely 
asked    whether  He  was  a  Son.^^    De  Trin.  vlii.  3. 

^  If  once  they  could  be  allowed  to  deny  our  Lord^s 
proper  divinity,  they  cared  not  what  high  titles  they 
heaped  upon  Him  in  order  to  cloak  over  their  heresy, 
and  to  calm  the  indignation  and  alarm  which  it  roused ; 
nay,  in  the  case  of  many  of  the  Semi-Arians,  in  order 
to  hide  the  logical  consequences  of  their  misbelief  from 
themselves.  They  did  not  like  to  call  our  Lord  barely 
a  creature ;  certainly  the  political  party  did  not,  who 
had  to  carry  the  Emperor  with  them,  and,  if  possible, 
the  laity.  Anyhow,  in  their  preaching  He  was  the 
first  of  creatures ;  more  than  a  creature,  because  a  son, 
though  they  could  not  say  what  was  meant  by  a  son, 
as  distinct  from  a  creature :  and  so  far  they  did  in  fact 
confess  a  mystery;  that  is,  the  Semi-Arians,  such  as 
Eusebius,  as  shown  in  a  passage  quoted  in  art.  So7i ; 
though  Arius  and  Arians  proper,  and  the  Anomocans, 
who  spoke  out,  and  had  no  fear  of  the  Imperial  Court, 


38 


THE  ARIANS. 


avowed  their  belief  that  our  Lord^  like  other  creatures^ 
was  capable  of  falling.  However,  as  represented  by 
their  Councils  and  Creeds,  they  readily  called  Him  a 
creature  not  as  other  creatures,  an  offspring  not  as 
other  offsprings/^  the  primeval  and  sole  work  of  God, 
the  Creator,  and  created  in  order  to  create,  the  one 
Mediator,  the  one  Priest,  God  of  the  world,  Image  of 
the  Most  Perfect,  the  Mystical  Word  and  Wisdom  of 
the  Highest,  and,  as  expressive  of  all  this,  the  Only 
begotten. 

^  What  use  is  it,^'  says  Athan.,  ^^to  pretend  that 
He  is  a  creature  and  not  a  creature  ?  for  though  ye 
shall  say.  Not  as  ^  one  of  the  creatures,^  I  will  prove 
this  sophism  of  yours  to  be  a  poor  one.  For  still  ye 
pronounce  Him  to  be  one  of  the  creatures ;  and  what- 
ever a  man  might  say  of  the  other  creatures,  such  ye 
hold  concerning  the  Son.  For  is  any  one  of  the  crea- 
tures just  what  another  is,  that  ye  should  predicate 
this  of  the  Son  as  some  prerogative  ?  Orat.  ii.  §  19. 
And  so  S.  Ambrose,  Quae  enim  creatura  non  sicut 
alia  creatura  non  est  ?  Homo  non  ut  Angelus,  terra 
non  ut  coelum.^^  De  Fid.  i.  n.  130  ;  and  a  similar 
passage  in  Nyss.  contr.  Eun.  iii.  p.  132,  3. 

^  The  question  between  Catholics  and  Arians  was 
whether  our  Lord  was  a  true  Son,  or  only  called  Son. 

Since  they  whisper  something  about  Word  and 
Wisdom  as  only  names  of  the  Son,^^  &c.  ovofjiara  fMopov, 
Deer.  §  16.  The  title  of  Image  too  is  not  a  token  of 
a  similar  substance,  but  His  name  only,^^  Orat.  i.  §  21 ; 
and  so  ii.  §  38,  where  toZ?  ovofjiaaL  is  synonymous  with 
KUT  eirLvoLav,  as  Sent.  D.  22,  vid.  also  ibid.  §  39 ;  Orat. 


THE  ARIAIMS. 


39 


iii.  §  ]ly  18;  ^^not  named  Son^  but  ever  Son/^  iv. 
§  24,  fin.  j  Ep.  Mg.  16.  We  call  Him  so,  and  mean 
truly  what  we  say ;  they  say  it,  but  do  not  confess  it/^ 
Chrysost.  in  Act.  Horn.  33,  4.  Vid.  also  voOoc^  coairep 
ovofjLaatt  Cyril,  de  Trin.  ii.  p.  418.  Non  base  nuda 
nomina,^^  Ambros.  de  Fid.  i.  17.  Yet,  though  the 
Arians  denied  the  reality  of  the  Sonship,  so  it  was  that 
since  Sabellianism  went  beyond  them,  as  denying  the 
divine  Sonship  in  any  sense^  Orat.  iv.  2,  they  were  able 
to  profess  that  they  believed  that  our  Lord  was  true 
Son.^^  E.g.,  this  is  professed  by  Arius,  Syn.  §  16;  by 
Euseb.  in  Marc.  pp.  19,  35,  161 ;  by  Asterius,  Orat. 
ii.  §  37 ;  by  Palladius  and  Secundianus  in  the  Council 
of  Aquileia  ap.  Ambros.  0pp.  t.  2,  p.  791  (ed.  Bened.); 
by  Maximinus  ap.  August,  contr.  Max.  i.  6.  As  to 
their  sense  of  real,^^  it  was  no  more  than  the  sense 
in  which  Athan.  uses  the  word  of  us,  when  he  says 
vloTTOL^lJbeda  a\r}6(jo<;. 

^  When  the  Nicene  controversialists  maintained,  on 
the  contrary,  that  He  was  ^^true  God^^  because  He  was 

of  true  God,^^  as  the  Creed  speaks  (vid.  art.  Son) ;  of 
one  nature  with  God  as  the  offspring  of  man  is  of  one 
nature  with  man,  and  of  one  essence  as  well  as  of  one 
nature,  because  God  is  numerically  one,  the  Arians  in 
answer  denied  that,  by  reason  of  His  being  true  Son 
therefore  He  was  true  God.  They  said  that  in  order  to 
be  a  true  Son  it  was  sufficient  to  'partalce  of  the 
Father^s  nature,  that  is,  to  have  a  certain  portion  of 
divinity,  ^erovaia ;  this  all  holy  beings  had,  and 
without  it  they  could  not  be  holy  ;  of  this  S.  Peter 
speaks ;  but  as  this  participation  of  the  divine  nature 


40 


THE  ARIANS. 


does  not  make  holy  beings  who  possess  it  God^  neither 
is  the  Son  God^  though  He  be  Son  Kvptco^  koX  aXriOod^, 
And  it  must  be  granted  that  the  words  Kvplco^;  and 
akfjOw^  are  applied  by  the  Fathers  themselves  to  the 
sonship  conveyed  in  the  gifts  of  regeneration  and 
sanctification.    (Arts.  Father  and  Grace.) 

T[  The  Catholics  would  reply  that  it  was  not  a  ques- 
tion of  the  use  of  terms :  anyhow,  to  have  a  fierovaia 
of  divinity,  as  creatures  have,  is  not  to  have  the  divine 
ovcTia,  as  our  Lord  has.  No  ixeTovaia  is  a  proper 
gennesis,  "  When  God  is  ivliolly  partaken,  this,^^  says 
Athanasius,  and  we  may  add,  this  only,  ^^is  equivalent 
to  saying  He  begets/^    In  this  sense  Augustine  says, 

^  As  the  Father  has  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He  given 
also  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself,^  not  by  partici- 
pating, but  in  Himself.  For  we  men  have  not  life  in 
ourselves,  but  in  our  God.  But  that  Father,  who  has 
life  in  Himself,  begat  a  Son  such,  as  to  have  life  in 
Himself,  not  to  become  partaker  of  life,  but  to  be 
Himself  life;  and  of  that  life  to  malie  us  partahers.'^ 
Serm.  127,  de  Verb.  Evang.  9.  It  was  plain,  then, 
that,  though  the  Arians  professed  to  accept  the  word 

Son  in  its  first  and  true  sense,  they  did  not  under- 
stand it  in  its  literal  fulness,  but  in  only  a  portion 
or  aspect  of  its  true  sense,  that  is,  figuratively. 

^  Hence  it  stands  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  ^^from  the 
Father,  that  is,  from  the  substance  of  the  Father.'^ 
Vid.  Eusebius's  Letter  (Deer.  App.).  According  to  the 
received  doctrine  of  the  Church,  all  rational  beings,  and 
in  one  sense  all  beings  whatever,  are  ^^from  God,^^ 
over  and  above  the  fact  of  their  creation;  and  of  this 


THE  ARIANS. 


41 


trath  the  Eusebians  made  use  to  deny  our  Lord^s 
proper  divinity.  Atlian.  lays  down  elsewhere  that 
nothing  continues  in  consistence  and  life^  except  from 
a  participation  of  the  Word^  which  is  to  be  considered 
a  gift  from  Him,  additional  to  that  of  creation,  and 
separable  in  idea  from  it.  Vid.  art.  Grace,  Thus  he 
says  that  ^'ihe  all-powerfal  and  all-perfect,  Holy  Word 
of  the  Father,  pervading  all  things,  and  developing 
everywhere  His  power,  and  illuminating  all  things 
visible  and  invisible,  gathers  them  within  Himself  and 
knits  them  in  one,  leaving  nothing  destitute  of  His 
power,  but  quickening  and  preserving  all  things  and 
through  all,  and  each  by  itself,  and  the  whole  alto- 
gether/^ Contr.  Grent.  42.  AgSLm, God  not  only  made 
us  of  nothing,  but  also  vouchsafed  to  us  a  life  according 
to  God,  by  the  grace  of  the  Word.  But  men,  turning 
from  things  eternal  to  the  things  of  corruption  at  the 
devil's  counsel,  have  brought  on  themselves  the  corrup- 
tion of  death,  who  were,  as  I  said,  by  nature  corrupted, 
but  by  the  grace  of  the  participation  [fieTovaia^)  of  the 
Word,  would  have  escaped  their  natural  state,  had  they 
remained  good.'^^  Incarn.  5.  Man  thus  considered  is, 
in  his  first  estate,  a  son  of  God  and  born  of  God,  or,  to 
use  the  term  which  occurs  so  frequently  in  the  Arian 
controversy,  in  the  number,  not  only  of  the  creatures, 
but  of  things  generate,  ryevrjrd.  This  was  the  sense  in 
which  the  Arians  said  that  our  Lord  was  Son  of  God ; 
whereas,  as  Athan.  says,  things  generate,  being  luorhs 
{SrjfjLLovpyri/jLaTa,)  cannot  be  called  generate,  except  so 
far  as,  after  their  making,  they  partake  of  the  begotten 
Son,  and  are  therefore  said  to  have  been  generated 


42 


THE  ABIANS. 


also ;  not  at  all  in  their  own  nature^  but  because  of  their 
participation  of  the  Son  in  the  Spirit/^  Orat.  i.  56. 
The  question  then  was^  as  to  the  distinction  of  the 
Son^s  divine  generation  over  that  of  holy  men ;  and  the 
Catholics  answered  that  He  was  ovaia^j  from  the 
substance  of  God ;  not  by  participation  of  grace,  not  by 
resemblance,  not  in  any  limited  sense,  but  really  and 
simply  from  Him,  and  therefore  by  an  internal  divine 
act.  Vid.  Deer.  §  22. 

^  The  Arians  availed  themselves  of  certain  texts  as 
objections,  argued  keenly  and  plausibly  from  them,  and 
would  not  be  driven  from  them.  Orat.  ii.  §  18;  Epiph. 
Ha3r.  69,  15.  Or  rather  they  took  some  words  of 
Scripture,  and  made  their  own  deductions  from  them  ; 
viz.,  Son,'^  made/^  exalted,^^  &c.  Making  their 
private  impiety  as  if  a  rule,  they  misinterpret  all  the 
divine  oracles  by  it.^^  Orat.  i.  §  52.  Vid.  also  Epiph. 
Hser.  76.  5,  fin.  Hence  we  hear  so  much  of  their 
OpvXkrjToX  ^coval,  Xe^eL^,  eirr],  prjra,  sayings  in  general 
circulation,  which  were  commonly  founded  on  some 
particular  text ;  e.g.,  Orat.  i.  §  22,  amply  providing 
themselves  with  words  of  craft,  they  used  to  go  about, 
&c.^^  irepirjp'XpvTo,  Vid.  vol.  i.  p.  29,  note.  Also  av(o 
fcal  KCLTCO  irepi^epovre^,  De  Deer.  §  13 :  to)  priT(p 
leOpvXKrjicaaL  ra  nTavTa')(pv,  Orat.  ii.  §  18;  to 
nroXvO pvXkr]Tov  cr6(f)L(7/jLay  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  14 ; 
T7)v  iro\v6pvW7]Tov  ScaXe/CTLKrjVy  Nyssen  contr.  Eun.  iii. 
p.  125 ;  Tr]v  dpvWov/jLevrjv  airopporjv,  Cyril.  Dial.  iv.  p. 
505 ;  Tr]v  iTo\vdpvXk7]Tov  (fxovrjv,  Socr.  ii.  43. 

^  Eusebius^s  letter  to  Euphration,  mentioned  Syn. 
§  17,  illustrates  their  sharp  and  shallow  logic — If  they 


THE  ARIANS. 


43 


co-exist^  liow  shall  the  Father  be  Father  and  the  Son 
Son  j  or  how  the  One  firsts  the  Other  second  ?  and  the 
One  ingenerate  and  the  Other  generate  ?  Acta  Cone. 
7,  p.  1015,  Ed.  Yen.  1729.  Hence  Arius,  in  his  Letter 
to  Eusebius  Nic._,  coroplains  that  Alexander  says^  ael  6 
Oeo^i  ael  6  vlor  a/uba  irarrjp,  a/jua  vl6<^,  Theod.  Hist, 
i.  4.  *^Then  their  profaneness  goes  farther/^  says 
Athan. ;  Orat.  i.  §  14.  ^  If  it  never  was,  that  the  Son 
was  not/  say  they,  ^  but  He  is  eternal,  and  co-exists 
with  the  Father,  call  Him  no  more  the  Father^s  Son, 
but  brother.^  As  the  Arians  here  object  that  the 
First  and  Second  Persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  are 
dSeXcfyol,  so  did  they  say  the  same  in  the  course  of  the 
controversy  of  the  Second  and  Third.  Vid.  Athan. 
Scrap,  i.  15  ;  iv.  2. 

^  They  contend  that  the  Son  and  the  Father  are 
not  in  such  wise  One  or  Like  as  the  Church  preaches, 
but  .  .  .  they  say,  since  what  the  Father  wills,  the 
Son  wills  also,  in  all  respects  concordant,  .  .  .  there- 
fore it  is  that  He  and  the  Father  are  one.^^  Orat.  iii.  §  10. 

^    The  Arians  reply,  ^  So  are  the  Son  and  the  Father 
One,  and  so  is  the  Father  in  the  Son,  and  the  Son  in 
the  Father,  as  we  too  may  become  one  in  Him.^ 
Orat.  iii.  §  17. 

^  In  the  Arian  Creed  of  Potamius,  Bishop  of  Lisbon, 
our  Lord  is  said  hominem  suscepisse  per  quem 
compassus  est,^^  which  seems  to  imply  that  He  had  no 
soul  distinct  from  His  Divinity.  ^^Non  passibilis  Deus 
Spiritus,^^  answers  Phoobadius,  licet  in  homino  suo 
passus.*^  The  Sardican  confession  also  seems  to  impute 
this  heresy  to  the  Arians.  Vid.  supr.  vol.  i.  note,  p. 
116,  and  infr.  art.  Easchhis,  fin. 


44 


THE  ARIANS. 


^  They  did  not  admit  into  their  theology  the  notion 
of  mystery.  In  vain  might  Catholics  urge  the  ne  sutor 
ultra  crepidam»  It  was  useless  to  urge  upon  them  that 
they  were  reasoning  about  matters  upon  which  they 
had  no  experimental  knowledge ;  that  we  had  no  means 
of  determining  whether  or  how  a  spiritual  being,  really 
trine,  could  be  numerically  one,  and  therefore  can  only 
reason  by  means  of  our  conceptions,  and  as  if  nothing 
were  a  fact  which  was  inconceivable.  It  is  a  matter  of 
faith  that  Father  and  Son  are  one,  and  reason  does  not 
therefore  contradict  it,  because  experience  does  not 
show  us  how  to  conceive  of  it.  To  us,  poor  creatures 
of  a  day, — who  are  but  just  now  born  out  of  nothing, 
and  have  everything  to  learn  even  as  regards  human 
knowledge, — that  such  truths  are  incomprehensible  to 
us,  is  no  wonder. 

^  The  Anomoean  Arians,  who  arose  latest  and  went 
farthest,  had  no  scruple  in  answering  this  consideration 
by  denying  that  God  was  incomprehensible.  Arius 
indeed  says  in  his  Thalia  that  the  Son  cannot  know 
the  Father  by  comprehension,  Kara  KaraXrjyjnv  :  to 
that  which  has  origin,  to  conceive  how  the  Unoriginate 
is,  is  impossible.''^  Syn.  §  15;  but  on  the  other  hand 
the  doctrine  of  the  Anomoeans,  who  in  most  points 
agreed  with  Arius,  was,  that  all  men  could  know  God 
as  He  knows  Himself ;  according  to  Socrates,  who 
says,  Not  to  seem  to  be  slandering,  listen  to 
Eunomius  himself,  what  words  he  dares  to  use  in 
sophistry  concerning  God;  they  run  thus: — ^  God 
knows  not  of  His  own  substance  more  than  we  do ; 
nor  is  it  known  to  Him  more,  to  us  less ;  but  whatso- 


THE  ARIANS. 


45 


ever  we  may  know  of  it^  that  He  too  knows ;  and  what 
again  He^  that  you  will  find  without  any  difierence  in 
us/       Hist.  iv.  7. 

%  KaTaXrjyjn^;  was  originally  a  Stoical  word_,  and  even 
when  the  act  was  perfect^  it  was  considered  attribu- 
table only  to  an  imperfect  being.  For  it  is  used  in 
contrast  to  the  Platonic  doctrine  of  iSeai,  to  express 
the  hold  of  things  obtained  by  the  mind  through  the 
senses;  it  being  a  Stoical  maxim^  nihil  esse  in 
intellectu  quod  non  fuerit  prius  in  sensu.'-'  In  this 
sense  it  is  also  used  by  the  Fathers^  to  mean  real  and 
certain  knowledge  after  inquiry,  through  it  is  also 
ascribed  to  Almighty  God.  As  to  the  position  of 
Arius,  since  we  are   told   in    Scripture    that  none 

knoweth  the  things  of  a  man  save  the  spirit  of  man 
which  is  in  him/^  if  KaTd\7]y\n<^  be  an  exact  and  com- 
plete knowledge  of  the  object  of  contemplation,  to 
deny  that  the  Son  comprehended  the  Father,  was 
to  deny  that  He  was  in  the  Father,  that  is,  to  deny 
the  doctrine  of  the  rrrepi'xoipriai<^, — vid.  in  the  Thalia, 
Syn.  §  15,  the  word  aveiriinicTOL  or  to  maintain  that 
He  was  a  distinct,  and  therefore  a  created,  being. 
On  the  other  hand.  Scripture  asserts  that,  as  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  is  in  God  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the 
deep  things,'^  of  God,  so  the  Son,  as  being  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,^^  alone  ^^hath  declared  Him/^ 
Vid.  Clement.  Strom,  v.  12.  And  thus  Athan.,  speaking 
of  Mark  xiii.  32,  If  the  Son  is  in  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  in  the  Son,  and  the  Father  knows  the  day 
and  the  hour,  it  is  plain  that  the  Son  too,  being  in  the 
Father,  and  knowing  the  things  in  tlio  Father,  Himself 


46 


THE  ARIANS. 


also  knows  the  day  and  the  hour/'  Orat.  iii.  44^  vid, 
also  Matt.  xi.  27. 

4.    Historical  Course  of  Arianism, 

There  seems  to  have  been  a  remarkable  anticipation 
of  this  heresy  in  the  century  before  its  rise  ;  and  it  is 
notable  as  showing  in  consequence  the  early  date  of  a 
formal  development  of  Catholic  theology^  which  we 
are  apt  to  assign  to  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  Vid. 
note  on  p.  47  in  the  present  work,  ed.  Oxf.  The  con- 
troversy which  called  for  this  development  arose  in 
the  middle  of  the  third  century^  and  incurred  the 
vigilant  protest  of  the  Pope  of  the  day  as  being  the 
issue  of  a  dangerous  opinion,  founded  apparently  on 
the  Stoic  distinction  between  the  X0709  evhidOero^  and 
TTpo^opLKo^,  and  looked  on  with  favour  in  some  Catholic 
quarters,  vid.  Tracts  Theol.,  &c.,  art.  iii.  p.  137.  And 
thus  we  are  brought  to  Arianism. 

^  When  this  conclusion  was  reached  by  a  number  of 
men  sufficient  in  position  and  influence  to  constitute  a 
party,  the  first  Ecumenical  Council  was  held  in  a.d.  325 
at  Nicsea  for  its  condemnation. 

The  Nicene  Fathers,  in  the  first  place,  defined  the 
proper  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  introducing  into 
their  creed  the  formulas  ef  oucr/a?  and  6fioovcno<;,  as 
tests  of  orthodoxy,  and  next  they  anathematised  the 
heretical  propositions  :  and  this  with  the  ready  adhesion 
of  Constantino.    He  died  in  337. 

^  During  his  later  years  he  had  softened  towards  the 
Arians,  and  on  his  death  they  gained  his  son  Constan- 


THE  ARIANS. 


47 


tius^  who  tyrannised  over  Christendom,  persecuting  the 
orthodox  Bishops,  and  especially  Athanasius,  till  his 
immature  death  in  361. 

^  The  Arians  regained  political  power  on  the  acces- 
sion of  Valens,  in  364,  who  renewed  the  persecutions 
of  Con stan tins. 

^  They  came  to  an  end,  as  far  as  regards  any 
influence  on  the  State,  upon  the  accession  of  Theo- 
dosius  and  the  Second  Ecumenical  Council,  381. 

In  the  controversies  and  troubles  they  occasioned, 
while  the  orthodox  formulas  were,  as  has  been  said,  the 
ovala^  and  the  ofioovaco^,  (viz.,  that  our  Lord  was 
from  and  in  the  Divine  Essence,)  the  Semi-Arians 
maintained  the  ofMotovaiov,  or  that  He  was  like  the 
Divine  Essence,  the  political  and  worldly  party  of 
Busebius,  Acacius,  and  Eudoxius,  professed  vaguely 
the  ofjLOiov  Kara  iravra,  or  that  our  Lord  was  like  God  in 
all  things,  and  the  fanatical  Anomoeans  gained  their 
name  because  they  denied  any  likeness  in  Him  to  God 
at  all. 


48 


ASTERIUS. 


ASTERIUS. 

This  writer^  already  noticed  in  art.  Avian  Leaders, 
seems  according  to  Athan.  to  have  been  hired  to  write 
npon  the  Arian  side^  and  argued  on  the  hypothesis  of 
Semi-Arianism.  He  agrees  very  much  in  doctrine 
with  Eusebius^  and  in  moderation  of  language,  judging 
by  the  extracts  which  Athan.  has  preserved.  (Vid.  also 
Epiph.  Hser.  72,  6.) 

^  Like  Eusebius,  he  held  (Orat.  ii.  §  24)  that  the  God 
of  all  created  His  Son  as  an  instrument  or  organ,  or 
vTTovpyo^y  of  creation,  by  reason  of  the  necessary  inca- 
pacity in  the  creature,  as  such,  to  endure  the  force 
and  immediate  presence  of  a  Divine  Hand  (vid.  art. 
cLKparo^),  which,  while  It  created,  would  have  annihi- 
lated. (Euseb.  Demonstr.  iv.  4;  Eccl.  Th.  i.  8,  13; 
PrsBp.  vii.  15;  Sabell.  p.  9.) 

^  But,  says  Athanasius,  it  is  contrary  to  all  our 
notions  of  religion  to  suppose  God  is  not  sufficient  for 
Himself,  and  cannot  create,  enlighten,  address,  and 
unite  Himself  to  His  creatures  immediately.  The 
Word  has  with  His  Father  the  oneness  of  Godhead 
indivisible.  Else,  why  does  the  Father  through  Him 
create,  and  in  H'im  reveal  Himself  to  whom  He  will, 
&c.  ...  If  they  say  that  the  Father  is  not  all- 
sufficient,  their  answer  is  impious.^^  Orat.  ii.  §  41. 
And  such  an  answer  seems  to  be  implied  in  saying  that 


ASTERIUS. 


49 


the  Son  was  created  for  creation^  illumination,  &c., 
&c. ;   vid.  art.  Mediation. 

^  He  considered  that  our  Lord  was  taught  to  create, 
and  without  teaching  could  not  by  His  mere  nature 
have  acquired  the  skill.  Though  He  is  a  creature, 
and  has  been  brought  into  being/^  Asterius  writes, 

yet  as  from  Master  and  Artificer  has  He  learned  to 
frame  things,  and  thus  has  ministered  to  God  who 
taught  Him,^'  Orat.  ii.  §  28,  vid.  art.  Eusehius,  who 
speaks  of  the  Word  in  the  poetical  tone  of  Platonism. 

Also  he  distinguishes  after  the  manner  of  the 
Semi- Arians,  between  the  y€uv7]TLKr]  and  the  8rj/jLcovpyLKrj 
hvvafjLi^,  Again,  the  illustration  of  the  Sun  (Syn. 
§  19)  is  another  point  of  agreement  with  Eusebius ; 
vid.  Demonstr.  iv.  5. 

^  And  he,  like  Eusebius,  is  convicted  of  Arianism 
beyond  mistake,  in  whatever  words  he  might  cloak 
his  heresy,  by  his  rejection  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
7re/96%a)p77cr^9.  He  is  in  the  Father,^^  he  says,  ^^and  the 
Father  again  in  Him,  because  neither  the  word  on 
which  He  is  discoursing  is  His  own,  but  the  Father^s, 
nor  the  works,  but  the  Father^s  who  gave  Him  the 
power.^^    Orat.  iii.  §  2. 

%  He  defined  the  ayevvr)To<^,  or    Ingenerate,  to  mean 
that  which  never  came  into  being,  but  was  always 
(Orat.  i.  §  30) ;  and  then  he  would  argue,  that  God  being 
wyevvr}To^y  and  a  Son  y€vv7]To<=;,  our  Lord  could  not  be 
God. 

H  While,  with  the  other  Arians,  he  introduced  philo- 
sophical terms  into  theology,  he  with  them  explained 
away  Scripture.    They  were  accustomed  to  interpret 

VOL.  II.  E 


50 


ASTERIUS. 


our  Lord's  titles,  Son/'  Word/'  Power/'  by  the 
secondary  senses  of  sucli  terms,  as  they  belong  to  us, 
God's  children  by  adoption ;  and  so  Asterius,  perhaps 
flippantly,  answered  such  arguments,  as  '^Christ  God's 
Power  and  Wisdom,"  by  objecting  that  the  locust  was 
called  by  the  prophet    God's  great  power/'    Syn.  §  19. 

^  He  argues,  in  behalf  of  our  Lord's  gennesis  following 
upon  an  act  of  Divine  counsel  and  will,  that  we  must 
determine  the  point  by  inquiring  whether  it  is  more 
worthy  of  God  to  act  with  deliberation  or  not.  Now 
the  Creator  acted  with  such  counsel  and  will  in  the 
work  of  creation ;  therefore  so  to  act  is  most  worthy 
of  Him ;  it  follows  that  will  should  precede  the  gen- 
nesis  also.  But  in  that  case  the  Son  is  posterior  to 
the  Father. 


ATHANASIUS. 


51 


ATHANASIUS. 

This  renowned  Father  is  in  ecclesiastical  history  the 
special  doctor  of  the  sacred  truth  which  Arius  denied, 
bringing  it  out  into  shape  and  system  so  fully  and 
luminously  that  he  may  be  said  to  have  exhausted  his 
subject,  as  far  as  it  lies  open  to  the  human  intellect. 
But,  besides  this,  writing  as  a  controversialist,  not 
primarily  as  a  priest  and  teacher,  he  accompanies  his 
exposition  of  doctrine  with  manifestations  of  character 
which  are  of  great  interest  and  value.  Here  some  of 
the  more  prominent  of  these  traits  shall  be  set  down,  as 
they  are  seen  in  various  of  his  Treatises. 

1.  The  fundamental  idea  with  which  he  starts  in  the 
controversy  is  a  deep  sense  of  the  authority  of  Tradition, 
which  he  considers  to  have  a  definitive  jurisdiction 
even  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  though  at  the 
same  time  he  seems  to  consider  that  Scripture,  thus 
interpreted,  is  a  document  of  final  appeal  in  inquiry 
and  in  disputation.  Hence,  in  his  view  of  religion,  is 
the  magnitude  of  the  evil  which  he  is  combating,  and 
which  exists  prior  to  that  extreme  aggravation  of  it 
(about  which  no  Catholic  can  doubt)  involved  in  the 
characteristic  tenet  of  Arianism  itself.  According  to 
him,  opposition  to  the  witness  of  the  Church,  separation 
from  its  communion,  private  judgment  overbearing  the 
authorised  catechetical  teaching,  the  fact  of  a  denomi- 
nation, as  men  now  speak,  this  is  a  self-condemnation; 
and  the  heretical  tenet,  whatever  it  may  happen  to  be, 

E  2 


52 


ATHANASIUS. 


which  is  its  formal  life,  is  a  spiritual  poison  and  nothing 
else ;  the  sowing  of  the  evil  one  upon  the  good  seed,  in 
whatever  age  and  place  it  is  found ;  and  he  applies  to 
all  separatists  the  Apostle^s  words,  They  went  out 
from  us,  for  they  were  not  of  us/'  Accordingly,  speak- 
ing of  one  Ehetorius,  an  Egyptian,  who,  as  S.  Austin 
tells  us,  taught  that  all  heresies  were  in  the  right 
path  and  spoke  truth,^^  he  says  that  the  impiety  of 
such  doctrine  is  frightful  to  mention. A  poll.  i.  §  6. 

This  is  the  explanation  of  the  fierceness  of  his 
language,  when  speaking  of  the  Arians,  which  to  a 
modern  reader  may  seem  superfluous  and  painful ;  the 
heretics  were  simply,  as  Elymas,  full  of  all  guile  and 
of  all  deceit,  children  of  the  devil,  enemies  of  all 
justice,^^  6eoiJiaj(pL, — by  court  influence,  by  violent 
persecution,  by  sophistry,  seducing,  unsettling,  per- 
verting, the  people  of  God. 

2.  It  was  not  his  way  to  be  fierce,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  with  those  who  opposed  him ;  his  treatment  of 
the  Semi-Arians  is  a  proof  of  this.  Eusebius  of 
C83sarea  indeed  he  did  not  favour,  for  he  discerned  in 
that  eminent  man  what,  alas,  was  genuine  Arianism ; 
and  Eusebius^s  conduct  towards  him,  and  his  partisan- 
ship with  the  heretics,  and  his  antagonism  to  the  Nicene 
Council,  confirmed  his  judgment;  but  with  the  Semi- 
Arian  body,  who  rose  up  against  the  pure  Arians,  he  was 
very  gentle,  considering  them,  or  at  least  many  of  them, 
of  good  promise,  as  the  event  proved  them  to  be.  He 
calls  some  of  them  brethren  and  ar^airrjToL  (Syn. 
§§  41,  43),  as  Hilary  calls  them  Sanctissimi  viri,^^ 
(Syn.  80,  vid.  art.  Semi-Aiianism  infr.)     Nor  is  there 


ATHANASIUS. 


53 


any  violence  in  his  treatment  of  Marcellus^  Apollinaris, 
Hosius^  or  Liberius.    Vid.  art.  ^A\r]6eia, 

3.  And  so  in  the  account  lie  has  left  ns  of  the  death 
of  Arius  (de  Mort.  Ar.)^  which  he  considers^  and  truly^ 
as  an  awful  judgment  of  God^  there  is  no  triumph  in  his 
tone^  though  he  held  him  in  holy  horror;  not  those 
fierce  expressions^  which  certainly  are  to  be  found  in 
his  Orations.  ^^I  was  not  at  Constantinople/^  he  says^ 
when  he  died^  but  Macarius  the  Presbyter  was^  and  I 
heard  the  account  of  it  from  him.  Arius  had  been 
summoned  by  the  Emperor  Constantino^  through  the 
interest  of  the  Eusebians^  and,  when  he  entered  the 
presence,  the  Emperor  inquired  of  him,  whether  he 
held  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  he  declared 
upon  oath  that  he  held  the  right  faith.  .  .  The  Emperor 
dismissed  him  saying,  ^  If  thy  faith  be  right,  thou  hast 
done  well  to  swear ;  but  if  thy  faith  be  impious,  and 
thou  hast  sworn,  God  judge  thee  according  to  thy  oath.-^ 
When  he  thus  came  from  the  presence  of  the  Emperor, 
the  Eusebians,  with  their  accustomed  violence,  desired 
to  bring  him  into  the  Church ;  but  Alexander  the  Bishop 
.  .  .  .  was  greatly  distressed,  and,  entering  into  the 
Church,  he  stretched  forth  his  hands  to  God,  and 
bewailed  himself ;  and,  casting  himself  upon  his  face 
in  the  chancel,  he  prayed  upon  the  pavement.  Maca- 
rius also  was  present  and  prayed  with  him,  and  heard 
his  words.  And  he  sought  these  two  things,  saying, 
'  If  Arius  is  brought  to  communion  to-morrow,  let  me 
Thy  servant  depart,  ....  but,  if  Thou  wilt  spare 
Thy  Church  .  .  .  take  off  Arius,  lest  the  heresy  may 
seem  to  enter  with  him.^  ...  A  wonderful  and  extra- 


54 


ATHANASIUS. 


ordinary  circumstance  took  place.  While  tlie  Eusebians 
threatened,  the  Bishop  prayed;  but  Arius,  who  had 
great  confidence  in  the  Eusebians,  and  talked  very 
wildly,  seized  by  indisposition  withdrew,  and  suddenly, 
in  the  language  of  Scripture,  falling  headlong,  hurst 
asunder  in  the  midst,  and  immediately  expired  as  he  lay, 
and  was  deprived  both  of  communion  and  of  his  life 
together/^  Then  he  adds,  Such  was  the  end  of 
Arius ;  and  the  Eusebians,  overwhelmed  with  shame, 
buried  their  accomplice,  while  the  blessed  Alexander, 
amid  the  rejoicing  of  the  Church,  celebrated  the  Synaxis 
with  piety  and  orthodoxy,  praying  with  all  the  brethren 
and  greatly  glorifying  God;  not  as  exulting  in  his 
death  (God  forbid),  for  it  is  appointed  unto  all  men  once 
to  die,  but  .  .  .  that  the  Lord  Himself  judged  between 
the  threats  of  the  Eusebians  and  the  prayer  of  Alex- 
ander, and  condemned  the  Arian  heresy/^ 

4.  His  language,  in  speaking  of  Constantius,  gives 
opportunity  for  more  words.  Up  to  the  year  356, 
Athanasius  had  treated  Constantius  as  a  member  of  the 
Church;  but  at  that  date  the  Eusebian  or  Court  party 
abandoned  the  Semi- Arians  for  the  Anomoeans.  George 
of  Cappadocia  was  placed  as  Bishop  in  Alexandria, 
Athanasius  was  driven  into  the  desert,  S.  Hilary  and 
other  Western  Bishops  were  sent  into  banishment. 
Hosius  was  persecuted  into  signing  an  Arian  confession, 
and  Pope  Liberius  into  communicating  with  the  Arians. 
Upon  this  Athanasius  changed  his  tone,  and  considered 
that  he  had  to  deal  with  an  Antichrist.  In  his  Apol. 
contr.  Arian.  init.  (a.d.  350),  ad  Ep.  Mg.  5  (356), 
and  his  Apol,  ad  Constant,  passim.  (356),  he  calls  the 


ATHANASIUS. 


55 


Emperor  most  pious^  religious,  &c.  At  the  end  of  the 
last-mentioned  work,  §  27,  the  news  comes  to  him, 
while  in  exile,  of  the  persecution  of  the  Western 
Bishops  and  the  measures  against  himself.  He  still  in 
the  peroration  calls  Constantius  blessed  and  divinely 
favoured  Augustus,^^  and  urges  on  him  that  he  is  a 
Christian  Emperor,  ^LkG')(^pL(7T0<^J'  In  the  works 
which  follow,  Apol.  de  fuga,  §  26  (357),  he  calls  him 
a  heretic ;  and  Hist.  Arian.  §  45,  &c.  (358),  speaking 
with  indignation  of  the  treatment  of  Hosius,  &c.,  he 
calls  him  Ahab,''  Belshazzar/'  *^Saul,''  ^^Anti- 
christ.^^  The  passage  at  the  end  of  the  Apol.  contr. 
Arian.,  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  much  violence  and 
tyrannical  power  of  Constantius,^'  is  an  addition  of 
Athan.'^s  at  a  later  date.  Vid.  Montfaucon's  note  on  §  88, 
fin.  This  is  worth  mentioning,  as  it  shows  the  unfair- 
ness of  the  following  passage  in  Gribbon,  ch.  xxi. 
note  116  :  As  Athanasius  dispersed  secret  invectives 
against  Constantius,  see  the  Epistle  to  the  monks  ^'  [i.e., 
Hist.  Arian.  ad  Monach.  a.d.  358],  at  the  same  time 
that  he  assured  him  of  his  profound  respect,  we  might 
distrust  the  professions  of  the  Archbishop,  tom.  i. 
p.  677^'  [i.e.,  apparently  Apol.  ad  Const,  a.d.  356]. 
Again,  in  a  later  part  of  the  chapter,  ^^In  his  public 
Apologies,  which  he  addressed  to  the  Emperor  himself, 
he  sometimes  affected  the  praise  of  moderation  ;  luldlst 
at  the  same  time  in  secret  and  vehement  invectives  he 
exposed  Constantius  as  a  weak  and  wicked  prince,  the 
executioner  of  his  family,  the  tyrant  of  the  republic, 
and  the  Antichrist  of  the  Church. He  offers  no  proof 
of  this  assertion.    It  may  be  added  that  S.  Greg.  Naz. 


56 


ATHANASIUS. 


praises  Constantius^  but  it  is  in  contrast  to  Julian. 
Orat.  4.  3,  and  5.  6.  And  S.  Ambrose,,  but  it  is  for  his 
enmity  to  paganism.    Ep.  i.  18,  n.  32. 

5.  It  is  the  same  prudent,  temperate  spirit  and  prac- 
tical good  sense,  which  leads  Athanasius,  though  the 
prime  champion  of  the  Nicene  Homoiision,  to  be  so  loth 
to  use  that  formula,  much  less  abruptly  to  force  it  upon 
his  adversaries  in  the  first  instance,  and  to  content 
himself  with  urging  and  inculcating  our  Lord's  Divinity 
in  other  language  and  by  casual  explanations,  when  pre- 
judice or  party-spirit  made  it  difficult  to  get  a  hearing 
for  the  terms  which  the  Church  had  determined. 
Hence  in  his  Three  Orations  he  hardly  names  the 
Homoiision,  though  the  doctrine  which  it  upholds  is 
never  out  of  his  thoughts.  He  accepted  the  Semi-Arian 
Homoeiision,  though  he  is  so  often  represented  by  the 
shallow  ignorance  of  modern  times  to  have  waged  war 
with  other  theologians  whose  views  did  not  difi'er  from 
his  own  except  by  a  single  letter.       Those,^^  he  says, 

who  accept  everything  else  that  was  determined  at 
Nicasa,  and  quarrel  only  with  the  Homoiision,  must  not 
be  received  as  enemies,  nor  do  we  here  attack  them  as 
Ariomaniacs,  nor  as  opposers  of  the  Fathers,  but  we 
discuss  the  matter  with  them,  as  brothers  with  brothers, 
who  mean  what  we  mean,  and  dispute  only  about  the 
word.^^  Syn.  §  41.  [Arim.  n.  47.)  Vid.  arts,  o/jlolo^, 
Semi'ArianSy  &c. 

6.  It  arises  from  the  same  temper  of  mind  that  he  is 
so  self-distrustful  and  subdued  in  his  comments  on  Scrip- 
ture and  in  his  controversial  answers ;  he,  the  foremost 
doctor  of  the  Divine  Sonship,  being  the  most  modest  as 


ATHANASIUS. 


57 


well  as  the  most  authoritative  of  teachers.  Thus^ 
They  had  best  have  been  silent/^  i.e.^  in  so  sacred  a 
matter,  he  says,  ^^but  since  it  is  otherwise,  after 
many  prayers  that  God  would  be  gracious  to  us,  thus 
we  might  ask  them  in  turn,^'  &c.,  Orat.  i.  §  25.  {Disc. 
n.  89.)  Against  their  profaneness  I  wish  to  urge  a 
further  question,  bold  indeed,  but  with  a  religious 
intent, — be  propitious,  O  Lord  !  {Disc.  n.  50,  p.  197.) 

The  unwearied  habits  of  the  religious  man  is  to 
worship  the  All  (to  Trap)  in  silence,  and  to  hymn  God 
his  benefactor  with  thankful  cries  ....  but  since,^^  &c., 
ApoU.  i.  init. 

IF  And  especially  in  his  letter  to  the  Monks,  I 
thought  it  needful  to  represent  to  your  piety  what 
pains  the  writing  of  these  things  has  cost  me,  in  order 
that  you  may  understand  thereby  how  truly  the  Blessed 
Apostle  has  said,  0,  the  depth,  &c.,  and  may  kindly  bear 
with  a  weak  man,  such  as  I  am  by  nature.  For  the 
more  I  desired  to  write  and  endeavoured  to  force  myself 
to  understand  the  Divinity  of  the  Word,  so  much  the 
more  did  the  knowledge  thereof  withdraw  itself  from 
me,  and  in  proportion  as  I  thought  that  I  apprehended 
it,  in  so  much  I  perceived  myself  to  fail  of  doing  so. 
Moreover,  I  was  also  unable  to  express  in  writing  even 
what  I  seemed  to  myself  to  understand,  and  that  which 
I  wrote  was  unequal  to  the  imperfect  shadow  of  the 
truth  which  existed  in  my  conceptions,^^  ad  Monach.  i. 
Vid.  also  Scrap,  i.  15 — 17,  20;  ii.  init.,  iv.  8,  14;  Epict. 
12  fin.;  Max.  init. ;  Ep.  ^g.  11  fin.  Once  more  :  ''It 
is  not  safe  for  the  writings  of  an  individual  to  bo  pub- 
lished, especially  if  they  relate  to  the  highest  and  chief 


58 


ATHANASIUS. 


doctrines^  lest  what  is  imperfectly  expressed^  through 
infirmity  or  the  obscurity  of  language^  do  hurt  to  the 
reader/'  &c.    Mort.  Ar.  §  5. 

%  He  set  the  example  of  modesty  to  others.  Vid.  Basil, 
in  Eunom.  ii.  17;  Didym.  Trin.  iii.  3,  p.  341;  Ephr. 
Syr.  adv.  Haer.  Serm.  55  init.  (t.  2,  p.  557) ;  Facund. 
Tr.  Cap.  iii.  3  init. 

^  7.  And  his  repetitions  of  statements  in  these  Trea- 
tises are  not  without  a  place  in  the  evidences  of  his  re- 
ligious caution.  Often  indeed  they  must  be  accounted 
purely  accidental^  arising  from  forgetfulness^  as  he 
wandered  or  travelled  about,  what  it  was  that  he  had 
written  the  day  before;  often,  too,  they  may  have 
subserved  the  purpose  of  catechetical  instruction ;  but 
sometimes  they  would  seem  to  be  owing  to  his  anxiety 
to  confine  himself  to  words  which  had  stood  the  test  of 
time  or  of  readers,  or  at  least  were  existing  forms  which 
he  could  improve  upon  or  at  least  reconsider  and  ap- 
peal to,  as  after  his  time  is  instanced  in  S.  Leo. 

%  8.  As  to  his  acquirements,  they  were  considerable. 
Gregory  only  says  that  he  had  a  knowledge  rcov  iy/cvfc- 
Xlcov,  but  Sulpitius  speaks  of  him  as  a  jurisconsult  (vid. 
'philosophy  and  ova  La),  His  earliest  works,  written  when 
perhaps  he  was  not  more  than  twenty-one,  give  abun- 
dant evidence  of  a  liberal  education.  He  had  a  know- 
ledge of  Homer  and  Plato,  and  his  early  style,  though 
it  admits  of  pruning,  is  graceful  and  artistic.  I  cannot, 
with  Gibbon,  talk  of  its  rude  eloquence,^'  though  it 
has  not  the  refined  and  elaborate  elegance  of  Basil. 
And  Gibbon  grants  that  his  writings  are  clear,  for- 
cible, and  persuasive.^'   Erasmus  seems  to  prefer  him,  as 


ATHANASIUS. 


59 


a  writer,  to  all  the  Fathers,  and  certainly,  in  my  own 
judgment,  no  one  comes  near  him  but  Chrysostom  and 
Jerome.  Habebat,^'  says  Erasmus,  'Were  dotem  illam 
quam  Paulus  in  Episcopo  putat  esse  praocipuam,  to 
SiSaKTCKov ;  adeo  dilucidus  est,  acutus,  sobrius,  adtentus, 
breviter  omnibus  modis  ad  docendum  appositus.  Nihil 
habet  durum,  quod  offendit  in  TertulHano,  nihil  einheLiC' 
TLKov,  quod  vidimus  in  Hieronymo,  nihil  operosum,  quod 
in  Hilario,  nihil  laciniosum,  quod  est  in  Augustine, 
atque  etiam  Chrysostomo,  nihil  Isocraticos  numeros  aut 
Lysias  compositionem  redolens,  quod  est  in  Gregorio 
Nazianzeno,  sed  totus  est  in  explicanda  re/'  ap.  Mont- 
faucon,  t.  1.  p.  xxi.  ed.  Patav. 

Photius^s  praise  of  Athan/s  style  and  matter  is 
quoted  supr.  in  the  Notice  prej&xed  to  the  Orations. 


60 


THE  VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT. 


THE  VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT. 

IT  Formerly  the  worlds  as  guilty,  was  under  judg- 
ment from  the  Law ;  but  now  the  Word  has  taken  on 
Himself  the  judgment,  and,  having  suffered  in  the 
body  for  all,  has  bestowed  salvation  on  all.^^  Orat. 

i.  §  60. 

IT  When  the  Father  willed  that  ransom  should  be 
paid  for  all,  and  to  all  grace  should  be  given,  then  truly 
the  Word  .  .  .  did  take  earthly  flesh  .  .  .  that,  as  a 
high  priest  .  .  .  He  might  ofier  Himself  to  the  Father 
and  cleanse  us  all  from  sins  in  His  own  blood.'''  Orat. 

ii.  §  7. 

IF  The  perfect  Word  of  God  puts  around  Him  an 
imperfect  body,  and  is  said  to  be  created  for  the 
creatures,  that,  paying  the  debt  in  our  stead  [avd  fjfjLoov 
rrjv  6(j)€L\7]v  airoSiSov^;),  He  might  by  Himself  perfect 
what  was  wanting  in  man.  Now  immortality  was 
wanting  to  him,  and  the  way  to  paradise.^^  Orat. 
ii.  §  66. 

IT  How,  were  the  Word  a  creature,  had  He  power 
to  undo  God^s  sentence,  and  to  remit  sin  ?  Orat.  ii. 
§  67.  Our  Lord^s  death  is  \vTpov  irdvrcov,  Incarn.  V.  D. 
25,  et  passim;  XvTpov  /caOdpcnov,  Naz.  Orat.  30,  20  fin. 

IT  Therefore  was  He  made  man,  that  what  was  as 
though  given  to  Him,  might  be  transferred  to  us;  for 
a  mere  man  had  not  merited  this,  nor  had  the  Word 


THE  VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT. 


61 


Himself  needed  it.  He  was  united  therefore  to  us/^ 
&c.  Orat.  iv.  §  6.  Vid.  also  iii.  §  33  init.  and  In 
Illud  Omnia,  §  2  fin. 

^  There  was  need  He  should  be  both  man  and  God ; 
for  unless  He  were  man^  He  could  not  be  slain ;  unless 
He  were  God^  He  would  have  been  thought^  (not^  un- 
willing to  be  what  He  could,  but)  unable  to  do  what  He 
would."^^  August.  Trin.  xiii.  18.  *^  Since  Israel  could 
become  sold  under  sin,  he  could  not  redeem  himself 
from  iniquities.  He  only  could  redeem,  who  could  not 
sell  Himself,  who  did  no  sin ;  He  is  the  redeemer  from 
sin.^^  Id.  in  Psalm.  129,  n.  12.  ^^In  this  common 
overthrow  of  all  mankind,  there  was  but  one  remedy, 
the  birth  of  some  son  of  Adam,  a  stranger  to  the 
original  prevarication  and  innocent,  to  profit  the  rest 
both  by  his  pattern  and  his  merit.  Since  natural 
generation  hindered  this,  .  .  the  Lord  of  David  became 
his  son.''^  Leon.  Serm.  28,  n.  3.  Seek  neither  a 
^  brother  ^  for  thy  redemption,  but  one  who  surpasses 
thy  nature ;  nor  a  mere  ^  man,^  but  a  man  who  is  God, 
Jesus  Christ,  who  alone  is  able  to  make  propitiation  for 
us  all  .  .  .  One  thing  has  been  found  sufficient  for  all 
men  at  once,  which  was  given  as  the  price  of  ransom  of 
our  soul,  the  holy  and  most  precious  blood  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  which  He  poured  out  for  us  all.^^  Basil,  in 
Psalm.  48,  n.  4.  One  had  not  been  suflBcient  instead 
of  ail,  had  it  been  simply  a  man ;  but  if  He  be  under- 
stood as  God  made  man,  and  suffering  in  His  own 
flesh,  the  whole  creation  together  is  small  compared  to 
Him,  and  the  death  of  one  flesh  is  enough  for  the 
ransom  of  all  that  is  under  heaven.^'    Cyril,  de  rect. 


62 


THE  VICARIOUS  ATONEMENT. 


fid.  p.  132.  Vid.  also  Theod.  Eran.  iii.  pp.  196-8,  &c. 
Procl.  Orat.  i.  p.  63  (ed.  1630);  Yigil.-  contr.  Eutych. 
V.  9  fin.  §  15,  &c. ;  Greg.  Moral,  xxiv.  init. ;  Job.  ap. 
Phot.  222,  p.  583. 

Pardon,  however,  could  have  been  bestowed  with- 
out an  Atonement  such  as  our  Lord  made,  though  not 
renovation  of  nature.    Vid.  art.  Incarnation. 


CATECHISING. 


63 


CATECHISING. 

Athanasius  lays  mucli  stress  on  this  practice^  as 
in  fact  supplying  the  evidence  of  Tradition  as  to  the 
doctrine  which  Arius  blasphemed. 

E.g.  Let  them  tell  us,  by  what  teacher  or  by  what 
tradition  they  have  derived  these  notions  concerning 
the  Saviour  ?     de  Deer.  §  13  init. 

For  who  was  ever  yet  a  hearer  of  such  a  doctrine  ? 
or  whence  or  from  whom  did  the  abettors  and  hire- 
lings of  the  heresy  gain  it  ?  who  thus  expounded  to 
them  ^v^hen  they  were  at  school  ?  who  told  them, 
^  Abandon  creature  worship,  and  then  draw  near  and 
worship  a  creature  and  a  work  ?  ^  But  if  they  them- 
selves own  that  they  have  heard  it  now  for  the  first 
time,  how  can  they  deny  that  this  heresy  is  foreign, 
and  not  from  our  fathers  ?  But  what  is  not  from  our 
fathers,  but  has  come  to  light  in  this  day,  how  can 
it  be  but  that  of  which  the  blessed  Paul  has  foretold, 
that  in  the  latter  times  some  shall  depart  from  the 
sound  faith &c.  ?    Orat.  i.  §  8. 

Who  is  there,  who  when  he  heard,  upon  his  first 
catechisings,  that  God  had  a  Son,  and  had  made  all 
things  in  His  proper  Word,  did  not  understand  it 
in  that  sense  which  we  now  intend  ?  who,  when  the 
vile  Arian  heresy  began,  but  at  once,  on  hearing  its 


64 


CATECHISING. 


teacliers^  was  startled,  as  if  they  taught  strange 
things  ?       Orat.  ii.  §  34. 

%  Hence  too  Athan.^s  phrases  fiaOcov  ehthaaKev,  de 
Deer.  §  1,  Orat.  iii.  9,  ipcoTcovre^;  ifidvdavov,  Orat.  ii. 
§  1,  after  S.  Paul,  1  Cor.  xv.  3.  And  so  ''What  Moses 
taught,  that  Abraham  observed,  that  Noe  and  Enoch 
acknowledged,^^  &c.,  de  Deer.  §  5.  Vid.  art.  Rule  of 
Faith, 


CATHOLIC  :  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM.  65 


CATHOLIC  :  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM. 

For  the  adoption  into  Christianity^  and  the  sense  and 
force  of  the  word  Catholic/^  not  a  very  obvious  word, 
we  must  refer  to  the  Creed.  The  articles  of  the  Creed 
are  brief  enunciations  and  specimens  of  some,  and  of 
the  chief,  of  the  great  mercies  vouchsafed  to  man  in  the 
GospeL  They  are  truths  of  pregnant  significance,  and 
of  direct  practical  bearing  on  Christian  life  and  conduct. 
Such,  for  instance,  obviously  is  one  Baptism  for  the 
remission  of  sins,^^  and  ^*the  resurrection  of  the  body."'^ 
Such  then  must  be  our  profession  of  catholicity."  And, 
thus  considered,  the  two,  the  Catholic  Church  and 
^^the  Communion  of  Saints,^^  certainly  suggest  an  expla- 
nation of  each  other;  the  one  introducing  us  to  our  asso- 
ciates and  patrons  in  heaven,  and  the  other  pointing  out 
to  us  where  to  find  the  true  teaching  and  the  means  of 
grace  on  earth.  Indeed,  what  else  can  be  the  meaning 
of  insisting  on  the  One  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic 
Church  does  it  not  imply  a  contrast  to  other  so- 
called  Churches  ?  Now  this  plain  sense  of  the  Article, 
this  its  obvious  or  rather  its  only  sense,  is  abundantly 
confirmed  by  such  passages  of  the  Fathers  as  the  follow- 
ing, taken  in  connection  and  illustration  of  each  other. 

Thus,  to  begin  with  what  is  implied  and  introduced 
to  us  by  the  name      Christian. Orat.  i.  §§  2,  3. 

Though  the  blessed  Apostles  have  become  our  teachers, 
and  have  ministered  the  Saviour's  Gospel,  yet  not  from 

VOL.  II.  F 


66  CATHOLIC:  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM. 


them  have  we  our  titley  but  from  Christ  we  are  and  are 
named  Christians.  But  for  those  who  derive  the  faith 
which  they  profess  from  others^  good  reason  is  it  they 
should  bear  their  name,  whose  property  they  have  be- 
come.^^  Also^  Let  us  become  His  disciples  and  learn  to 
live  according  to  Christianity;  for  whoso  is  called  by 
other  name  beside  this,  is  not  of  God/^  Ignat.  ad 
Magn.  10.  Hegesippus  speaks  of  Menandrians,  and 
Marcionites,  and  Carpocratians,  and  Valentinians,  and 
Basilidians,  and  Saturnilians/^  who  ^*^each  in  his  own  way, 
and  that  a  different  one,  brought  in  his  own  doctrine. 
Euseb.  Hist.  iv.  22.  There  are,  and  there  have  been, 
my  friends,  many  who  have  taught  atheistic  and  blas- 
phemous words  and  deeds,  coming  in  the  Name  of 
Jesus ;  and  they  are  called  by  us  from  the  appellation 
of  the  men,  whence  each  doctrine  and  opinion  began. 
....  Some  are  called  Marcians,  others  Valentinians, 
others  Basilidians,  others  Saturnilians,^^  &c.  Justin. 
Tryph.  85.  They  have  a  name  from  the  author  of 
that  most  impious  opinion,  Simon,  being  called  Simo- 
nians.^^  Iren.  Haer.  i.  23.  When  men  are  called 
Phrygians,  or  Novatians,  or  Valentinians,  or  Mar- 
cionites,  or  Anthropians,  or  by  any  other  name,  they 
cease  to  be  Christians;  for  they  have  lost  Christ's 
name,  and  clothe  themselves  in  human  and  foreign 
titles.^^    Lact.  Inst.  iv.  30.  How  are  you  a  Chris- 

tian, to  whom  it  is  not  even  granted  to  bear  the  name 
of  Christian  ?  for  you  are  not  called  Christian,  but 
Marcionite.  M.  And  you  are  called  of  the  Catholic 
Church;  therefore  ye  are  not  Christians  either. 
A,  Did  we  profess  man^s  name,  you  would  have  spoken 


CATHOLIC  :  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM. 


67 


to  the  point;  but^  if  we  are  so  called  for  being  all  over 
the  world;  what  is  there  bad  in  this  ?  Adamant. 
Dial.  §  1;  p.  809.  ^^We  never  heard  of  Petrines,  or 
PaulineS;  or  Bartholomeans^  or  Thaddeans^  but  from 
the  first  there  was  one  preaching  of  all  the  Apostles, 
not  preaching  themselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord. 
Wherefore  also  they  all  gave  one  name  to  the  Church, 
not  their  own,  but  that  of  their  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
since  they  began  to  be  called  Christians  first  at 
Antioch;  which  is  the  sole  Catholic  Church,  having 
naught  else  but  Christ's,  being  a  Church  of  Christians, 
not  of  Christs,  but  of  Christians ;  He  being  one,  they 
from  that  one  being  called  Christians.  After  this 
Church  and  her  preachers,  all  others  are  no  longer  of 
the  same  character,  making  show  by  their  own 
epithets,  Manichaeans,  and  Simonians,  and  Valentinians, 
and  Ebionites.^'  Epiph.  Hser.  42,  p.  366.  ''This  is 
the  fearful  thing,  that  they  change  the  name  of 
Christians  of  the  Holy  Church,  which  hath  no  epithet 
but  the  name  of  Christ  alone,  and  of  Christians,  to  be 
called  by  the  name  of  Audius,"  &c.  Ibid.  70,  15.  Vid. 
also  Haor.  75,  6  fin.  ^'If  you  ever  hear  those  who  are 
called  Christians,  named,  not  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  but  from  some  one  else,  say  Marcionites, 
Valentinians,  Mountaineers,  Campestrians,  know  that 
it  is  not  Christ^s  Church,  but  the  synagogue  of  Anti- 
christ.^'   Jerom.  adv.  Lucif.  fin. 

Having  thus  laid  down  the  principle  that  the 
name,  given  to  a  religious  body,  is  a  providential 
or  divine  token,  they  go  on  to  instance  it  in 
the   word    ''  Catholic. ''  Since   one    might  pro- 

F  2 


68 


CATHOLIC  :  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM. 


perly  and  truly  say  that  there  is  a  ^  Church  of 
evil  doers/  I  mean  the  meetings  of  the  here- 
tics^ the  Marcionists^  and  Maiiichees,  and  the  rest, 
the  faith  hath  delivered  to  thee  by  way  of  security 
the  Article,  ^  And  in  One  Holy  Catholic  Church/  that 
thou  mayest  avoid  their  wretched  meetings ;  and  ever 
abide  with  the  Holy  Church  Catholic,  in  which  thou 
wast  regenerated.  And  if  ever  thou  art  sojourning  in 
any  city,  inquire  not  simply  where  the  Lord^s  House 
is,  (for  the  sects  of  the  profane  also  make  an  attempt 
to  call  their  own  dens  houses  of  the  Lord,)  nor  merely 
where  the  Church  is,  but  where  is  the  Catholic  Church. 
For  this  is  the  ^peculiar  name  of  this  Holy  Body,^^  &c. 
Cyril  Cat.  xviii.  26.  Were  I  by  chance  to  enter  a 
populous  city,  I  should  in  this  day  find  Marcionites, 
Apollinarians,  Cataphrygians,  Novatians,  and  other 
such,  who  called  themselves  Christian;  by  what  sur- 
name  should  I  recognise  the  congregation  of  my  own 
people,  were  it  not  called  Catholic  ?  .  .  .  .  Certainly 
that  word  ^  Catholic  ^  is  not  borrowed  from  man,  which 
has  survived  through  so  many  ages,  nor  has  the  sound 
of  Marcion  or  Apelles  or  Montanus,  nor  takes  heretics 
for  its  authors  .  .  Christian  is  my  name,  Catholic  my 
surname,^'    Pacian.  Ep.  1. 

^  Athan.  seems  to  allude,  Orat.  i.  §  2,  to  Catholics 
being  called  Athanasians ;  supr.,  vol.  i.  p.  157.  Two 
distinctions  are  drawn  between  such  a  title  in  con- 
troversy as  applied  to  Catholics,  and  then  again 
to  heretics,  when  they  are  taken  by  Catholics  as 
a  note  against  them.  S.  Augustine  says,  '^Avians 
call  Catholics  Athanasians  or  Homoiisians,  not  other 


CATHOLIC  :  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM. 


69 


heretics  call  them  so.  But  ye  not  only  by  Catholics 
hut  also  hi]  heretics,  those  who  agree  with  you  and  those 
who  disagree  are  called  Pelagians ;  as  even  hij  heretics 
are  Arians  called  Arians.  But  ye,  and  ye  only,  call  us 
Traducianists,  as  Arians  call  us  Homoiisians,  as  Dona- 
tists  Macarians,  as  Manichees  Pharisees,  and  as  the 
other  heretics  use  various  titles.'^  Op.  imp.  i.  75.  It 
may  be  added  that  the  heretical  name  adheres,  the 
Catholic  dies  away.  S.  Chrysostom  draws  a  second 
distinction,  Are  we  divided  from  the  Church  ?  have 
we  heresiarchs  ?  are  we  called  from  man  ?  is  there  any 
leader  to  us,  as  to  one  there  is  Marcion,  to  another 
Manichaeus,  to  another  Arius,  to  another  some  other 
author  of  heresy  ?  for  if  we  too  have  the  name  of  any, 
still  it  is  not  those  who  began  a  heresy,  but  our 
superiors  and  governors  of  the  Church.  We  have  not 
^teachers  upon  earth,^^^  &c.,  in  Act.  Ap.  Hom.  33  fin. 

^  Athan.  says  that  after  Eusebiiis  had  taken  up  the 
patronage  of  the  heresy,  he  made  no  progress  till  he 
had  gained  the  Court,  (Hist.  Arian.  66,)  showing  that  it 
was  an  act  of  external  power  by  which  Arianism  grew, 
not  an  inward  movement  in  the  Church,  which  indeed 
loudly  protested  against  the  Emperor^s  proceeding. 

If  Bishops   are   to  judge,'^  he  says,  ibid.  §  52, 

what  has  the  Emperor  to  do  with  this  matter  ?  if  the 
Emperor  is  to  threaten,  what  need  of  men  styled 
Bishops  ?  where  in  the  world  was  such  a  thing  heard 
of?  where  had  the  Churches  judgment  its  force  from 
the  Emperor,  or  his  sentence  was  at  all  recognised  ? 
Vid.  art.  Heretics, 

%    Many  Councils  have  been  before  this,  many  judg- 


70 


CATHOLIC:  THE  NAME  AND  THE  CLAIM. 


ments  of  the  Churcli,  but  neitHer  the  Fathers  ever  argued 
with  the  Emperor  about  them,  nor  the  Emperor  meddled 
with  the  concerns  of  the  Church.  Paul  the  Apostle  had 
friends  of  Ca3sar^s  household,  and  in  his  Epistle  he 
saluted  the  Philippians  in  their  name  ;  but  he  took  them 
not  to  him  as  partners  in  his  judgments.  But  now  a 
new  spectacle,  and  this  the  discovery  of  the  Arian 
heresy/^  &c.  §  52.  Again,  In  what  then  is  he  behind 
Antichrist  ?  what  more  will  he  do  when  he  comes  ?  or 
rather,  on  his  coming  will  he  not  find  the  way  pre- 
pared for  him  by  Constantius  unto  his  deceiving 
without  eff'ort  ?  for  he  is  claiming  to  transfer  causes  to 
the  Court  instead  of  the  Churches,  and  presides  at  them 
in  person.'^  Hist.  Arian.  §  76.  And  so  also  Hosiusto 
Constantius,  Cease,  I  charge  thee,  and  remember  that 
thou  art  a  mortal  man.  Fear  the  day  of  judgment ; 
keep  thyself  clear  against  it.  Interfere  not  with 
things  ecclesiastical,  nor  be  the  man  to  charge  us  in 
a  matter  of  the  kind ;  rather  learn  thou  thyself  from 
us.  God  has  put  into  thy  hand  the  kingdom ;  to  us 
He  hath  entrusted  the  things  of  the  Church, — and  as 
he  who  is  traitorous  to  thy  rule  speaks  against  God 
who  has  thus  ordained,  so  fear  thou,  lest  drawing  to 
thyself  the  things  of  the  Church,  thou  fallest  beneath 
a  great  accusation.''^  ap.  Athan.  ibid.  44. 


CHAMELEONS. 


71 


CHAMELEONS. 


The  Arians  were  ever  shifting  their  ground  or 
changing  their  professions,  in  order  to  gain  either  the 
favour  of  the  State,  or  of  local  bishops,  or  of  popula- 
tions, or  to  perplex  their  opponents.  Hence  Athan.  calls 
them  chameleons,  as  varying  their  colours  according  to 
their  company.  Deer.  §  1,  and  Alexander,  Socr.  i.  6. 
Cyril,  however,  compares  them  to  ^^the  leopard  which 
cannot  change  his  spots.^^  Dial.  ii.  init.;  vid.  also  Naz. 
Orat.  28,  2.  Athan.  says,  '^When  confuted,  they 
are  confused,  and  when  questioned,  they  hesitate ;  and 
then  they  lose  shame  and  betake  themselves  to  eva- 
sions.^^  Deer.  §  1.  "What  wonder  that  they  fight 
against  their  fathers,  when  they  fight  against  them- 
selves ?  Syn.  §  37.  "They  have  collisions  with  their 
own  principles,  and  conflict  with  each  other,  at  one 
time  saying  that  there  are  many  wisdoms,  at  another 
maintaining  one,'^  &c.  Orat.  ii.  §  40.  He  says,  JEig.  Ep. 
6,  that  they  treated  creeds  as  yearly  covenants,  and  as 
State  Edicts,  Syn.  §  3,  4.  He  calls  also  the  Meletians 
chameleons.  Hist.  Ar.  §  79  ;  indeed  the  Church  alone 
and  her  children  are  secure  from  change. 


72 


THE  COINHERENCE. 


THE  COINHERENCE, 

iTepL')((opr]ai<;y  circumincessio  or  coinherence  of  the 
Divine  Three  with  each  other,  is  the  test  at  once 
against  Arianism  and  Tritheism.  Arius  denies  it 
in  his  Thaha,  aveirLiiLKTol  eavrol^;  at  viroo-rdaei^. 
It  is  the  point  of  doctrine  in  which  Eusebius  so 
seriously  fails.  Vid.  art,  Eusehius,  When  Gibbon 
called  this  doctrine  perhaps  the  deepest  and 
darkest  corner  of  the  whole  theological  abyss/^  he 
made  as  irrelevant  and  feeble  a  remark  as  could 
fall  from  an  able  man ;  as  if  any  Catholic  pretended 
that  it  was  on  any  side  of  it  comprehensible,  and  as 
if  this  was  not  the  very  enunciation  in  which  the  in- 
comprehensibility lies  j  as  we  profess  in  the  Creed, 

neque  confundentes  personas,  neque  substantiam 
separantes/^  This  doctrine  is  not  the  deepest  part  of 
the  whole,  but  it  is  the  whole,  other  statements  being 
in  fact  this  in  other  shapes.  Each  of  the  Three  who 
speak  to  us  from  heaven  is  simply,  and  in  the  full 
sense  of  the  word,  God,  yet  there  is  but  one  God ;  this 
truth,  as  a  statement,  is  enunciated  most  intelligibly 
when  we  say  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  being 
one  and  the  same  Spirit  and  Being,  are  in  each  other, 
which  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Trepf-^copT^cr^?. 

IT  They  next  proceed,^^  says  Athanasius,  to  dis- 
parage our  Lord^s  words,  I  in  the  Father  and  the  Father 
in  Me,  saying,  ^  How  can  the  One  be  contained  in  the 


THE  COINHEEENCE. 


73 


Other  and  the  Other  in  the  One  ?  ^  &c. ;  and  this  state 
of  mind  is  consistent  with  their  perverseness,  who 
think  God  to  be  material^  and  understand  not  what 
is  True  Father  and  True  Son.  .  .  When  it  is  said^  I  in 
the  Father  and  the  Father  in  Me,  They  are  not  there- 
fore^ as  these  suppose^  discharged  into  Each  Other, 
filling  the  One  the  Other,  as  in  the  case  of  empty- 
vessels,  so  that  the  Son  fills  the  emptiness  of  the 
Father  and  the  Father  that  of  the  Son,  and  Each  of 
Them  by  Himself  is  not  complete  and  perfect,  (for 
this  is  proper  to  bodies,  and  therefore  the  mere  asser- 
tion of  it  is  full  of  impiety,)  for  the  Father  is  full  and 
perfect,  and  the  Son  is  the  Fulness  of  Godhead.  Nor 
again,  as  God,  by  coming  into  the  Saints,  strengthens 
them,  is  He  also  thus  in  the  Son.  For  He  is  Himself 
the  Father's  Power  and  Wisdom,  and,  by  partaking 
{fJi€Toxf])  of  Him,  things  generate  are  sanctified  in  the 
Spirit ;  but  the  Son  Himself  is  not  Son  by  participa- 
tion {/ji€Tov(TLa,  vid.  art.  Arian  Tenets,  supr.  pp.  39 — 42), 
but  is  the  Father^s  proper  Ofi'spring.  Nor  again  is 
the  Son  in  the  Father,  in  the  sense  of  the  passage,  Li 
Him  we  live  and  move  and  have  our  being  ;  for  He,  as 
being  from  the  Fountain  of  the  Father,  is  the  Life,  in 
which  all  things  are  both  quickened  and  consist ;  for 
the  Life  does  not  live  in  Life,  else  it  would  not  be 
Life,  but  rather  He  gives  life  to  all  things.'^  Orat.  iii. 
§  1.  And  again  :  The  Father  is  in  the  Son,  since 
the  Son  is  what  is  from  the  Father  and  proper  to  Him, 
as  in  the  radiance  the  sun,  and  in  the  word  the  thought, 
and  in  the  stream  the  fountain  :  for  whoso  thus  con- 
templates the  Son,  contemplates  what  belongs  to  the 


74 


THE  COINHERENCE. 


Father's  Substance,  and  knows  that  the  Father  is 
in  the  Son.  For  whereas  the  essential  character 
(elSo?)  and  Godhead  of  the  Father  is  the  Being  of  the 
Son,  it  follows  that  the  Son  is  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  the  Son/'  ibid.  §  3. 

%  In  accordance  with  the  above,  Thomassin  ob- 
serves that  by  the  mutual  coinherence  or  indwelling 
of  the  Three  Blessed  Persons  is  meant  not  a  com- 
mingling as  of  material  liquids,  nor  as  of  soul  with 
body,  nor  as  the  union  of  our  Lord's  Godhead  and 
humanity,  but  it  is  such  that  the  whole  power,  life, 
substance,  wisdom,  essence,  of  the  Father,  should  be 
the  very  essence,  substance,  wisdom,  life,  and  power  of 
the  Son.''  de  Trin.  28,  1.  S.  Cyril  adopts  Athan.'s 
language  to  express  this  doctrine.  The  Son  in  one 
place  says,  that  He  is  in  the  Father  and  has  the  Father 
again  in  Him ;  for  what  is  simply  proper  {lSlov)  to  the 
Father's  substance,  by  nature  coming  to  the  Son,  shows 
the  Father  in  Him."  in  Joan.  p.  105.  One  is  con- 
templated in  the  other,  and  is  truly,  according  to  the 
connatural  and  consubstantial."  de  Trin.  vi.  p.  621. 

He  has  in  Him  the  Son,  and  again  is  in  the  Son, 
because  of  the  identity  of  substance."  in  Joan.  p.  168, 
Vid.  art.  Trinity  ;  also.  Spirit  of  God. 

If  The  irepL'x^copTjaL^  is  the  test  of  orthodoxy,  as 
regards  the  Holy  Trinity,  against  Arianism.  This  is 
seen  clearly  in  the  case  of  Eusebius,  whose  language 
approaches  to  Catholic  more  nearly  than  that  of  Arians 
in  general.  After  all  his  strong  assertions,  the  ques- 
tion recurs.  Is  our  Lord  a  distinct  being  from  God,  as 
we  are,  or  not  ?  he  answers  in  the  affirmative,  vid. 


THE  COINHEEENCE. 


75 


infra,  art.  Eiisehius,  whereas  Catholics  hold  that  He  is 
literally  and  numerically  one  with  the  Father^  and 
therefore  His  Person  dwells  in  the  Father's  Person  by 
an  ineffable  unity.  And  hence  the  strong  language  of 
Pope  Dionysius^  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  45,  the  Holy  Ghost 
must  repose  and  dwell  in  God/^  i/jLcliiXo'x^copelv  tm  6ea> 
Kol  evhiaLTaadai.  And  hence  the  strong  figure  of  S. 
Jerome  (in  which  he  is  followed  by  S.  Cyril,  Thesaur. 
p.  51),  Filius  locus  est  Patris,  sicut  et  Pater  locus  est 
Filii/^  in  Ezek.  3,  12.  Hence  Athan.  contrasts  crea- 
tures, who  are  ev  fieiiepLafxevoi^^  tottoc^;,  with  the  Son. 
vid.  Serap.  iii.  4.  Accordingly,  one  of  the  first  symp- 
toms of  reviving  orthodoxy  in  the  second  school  of 
Semi-Arians  is  the  use,  in  the  Macrostich  Creed,  of 
language  of  this  character,  viz.,  All  the  Father 
embosoming  the  Son,^^  they  say,  and  all  the  Son 
hanging  and  adhering  to  the  Father,  and  alone  resting 
on  the  Father^s  breast  continually/^  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  107. 

II  St.  Jerome^s  figure  above  might  seem  inconsistent 
with  S.  Athanasius^s  disclaimer  of  material  images ; 
but  Athan.  only  means  that  such  illustrations  cannot 
be  taken  literally,  as  if  spoken  of  physical  subjects. 
The  Father  is  the  totto^  or  locus  of  the  Son,  because 
when  we  contemplate  the  Son  in  His  fulness  as  oXo? 
^€09,  we  only  view  the  Father  as  Him  in  whom  God 
the  Son  is  ;  our  mind  for  the  moment  abstracting  His 
Substance  which  is  the  Son  from  Him,  and  regarding 
Him  merely  as  Father.  Thus  Athan.  Tr]v  Oetav  ovaiav 
Tov  Xoyov  rjvco/jbeprjv  (pvaet  tm  eavrov  irarpL  in  illud  Omn. 
4.  It  is,  however,  but  a  mode  of  speaking  in  theology, 
and  not  a  real  emptying  of  Godhead  from  the  Father, 


76 


THE  COINHEEENCE. 


if  sucli  words  may  be  used.  Father  and  Son  are  both 
the  same  Grod^  though  really  and  eternally  distinct  from 
each  other;  and  Each  is  full  of  the  Other,  that  is,  their 
Substance  is  one  and  the  same.  This  is  insisted  on  by  S. 
Cyril :  We  must  not  conceive  that  the  Father  is  held  in 
the  Son  as  body  in  body,  or  vessel  in  vessel ;  .  .  .  for 
the  One  is  in  the  Other/^  iv  ravTorrjTC  Trj<^  ovaim 
airapoKkdiCTCp,  koL  tj]  fcara  (j)vcrtv  evorrjTL  re  Kal  o/jlolottjtl, 
in  Joan,  p.  28.  And  by  S.  Hilary  :  Material  natures 
do  not  admit  of  being  mutually  in  each  other,  of  having 
a  perfect  unity  of  a  nature  which  subsists,  of  the  abi- 
ding nativity  of  the  Only-begotten  being  inseparable 
from  the  verity  of  the  Father^s  Godhead.  To  God  the 
Only-begotten  alone  is  this  proper,  and  this  faith 
attaches  to  the  mystery  of  a  true  nativity,  and  this  is 
the  work  of  a  spiritual  power,  that  to  be,  and  to  be  in, 
differ  nothing ;  to  be  in,  yet  not  to  be  one  in  another 
as  body  in  body,  but  so  to  be  and  to  subsist,  as  to  be 
in  the  subsisting,  and  so  to  be  in,  as  also  to  subsist,^^ 
&c.  Trin.  vii.  fin. ;  vid.  also  iii.  23.  The  following 
quotation  from  S.  Anselm  is  made  by  Petavius,  de  Trin. 
iv.  16  fin.  :  Though  there  be  not  many  eternities, 
yet  if  we  say  eternity  in  eternity,  there  is  but  one 
eternity.  .  .  And  so  whatever  is  said  of  God^s  Essence, 
if  repeated  in  itself,  does  not  increase  quantity,  nor 
admit  number.  .  .  Since  there  is  nothing  out  of  God, 
when  God  is  born  of  God.  .  .  He  will  not  be  born  out 
of  God,  but  remains  in  God.'' 

There  is  but  one  Face  (elSo?,  character)  of  Godhead, 
which  is  also  in  the  Word,  and  One  God,  the  Father, 
existing  by  Himself  according  as  He  is  above  all ;  and 


THE  COINHERENCE. 


77 


appearing  in  the  Son  according  as  He  pervades  all 
things;  and  in  the  Spirit  according  as  in  Him  He  acts 
in  all  things  through  the  Word.  And  thus  we  confess 
God  to  be  One  through  the  Trinity/^  Orat.  iii.  §  15. 
And  so  :  The  Word  is  in  the  Father^  and  the  Spirit  is 
given  from  the  Word/^  iii.  §  25.  ^'  That  Spirit  is  in 
us  which  is  in  the  Word  which  is  in  the  Father.'^ 
ibid.  ^^'The  Father  in  the  Son  taketh  the  oversight 
of  all.''  §  36  fin. ;  vid.  art.  The  Father  AlmigUij,  2. 

The  sanctification  which  takes  place  from  Father 
through  Son  in  Holy  Ghost.-"  Scrap,  i.  §  20  ;  vid.  also 
ibid.  28,  30,  31,  iii.  1,  5  init.  et  fin.,  also  Hil.  Trin. 
vii.  31.  Eulogius  says,  The  Holy  Ghost,  proceeding 
from  the  Father,  having  the  Father  as  an  Origin,  and 
proceeding  through  the  Son  unto  the  creation.''  ap. 
Phot.  cod.  p.  865.  Damascene  speaks  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  as  Svva/jbLV  rod  irarpo^  irpoepxofJievTjv  koL  iv  Tft> 
\6^(p  ava7ravofjL€vr]Vy  F.  0.  i.  7 ;  and  in  the  beginning  of 
the  ch.  he  says  that  the  Word  must  have  Its  Breath 
(Spirit)  as  our  word  is  not  without  breath,  though  in 
our  case  the  breath  is  distinct  from  our  substance." 

The  way  to  knowledge  of  God  is  from  One  Spirit 
through  the  One  Son  to  the  One  Father."  Basil,  do 
Sp.  S.  47.  ^^We  preach  One  God  by  One  Son  with 
the  Holy  Ghost."  Cyr.  Cat.  xvi.  4.  The  Father 
through  the  Son  with  the  Holy  Ghost  bestows  all 
things."  ibid.  24.  All  things  have  been  made  from 
Father  through  the  Son  in  Holy  Ghost."  Pseudo- 
Dion,  de  Div.  Nom.  i.  p.  403.  Through  Son  and  in 
Spirit  God  made  all  things  consist,  and  contains  and 
preserves  them."    Pseudo-Athan.  c.  Sab.  Greg.  10. 


78 


THE  COINHERENCE. 


%  Since  tlie  Father  and  the  Son  are  the  numerically 
One  God,  it  is  but  expressing  this  in  other  words  to 
say  that  the  Father  is  in  the  Son,  and  the  Son  in  the 
Father,  for  all  They  have  and  all  They  are  is  common 
to  Bach,  excepting  their  being  Father  and  Son.  A 
7r€pL'x^p7]ai<;  of  Persons  is  implied  in  the  Unity  of 
Substance.  This  is  the  connection  of  the  two  texts  so 
often  quoted  :  the  Son  is  in  the  Father  and  the 
Father  in  the  Son,'*  because  the  Son  and  Father  are 
one."*^  And  the  cause  of  this  unity  and  7r€pt')(^coprjcn<;  is 
the  Divine  yevvrjai^;.  Thus  S.  Hilary:  The  perfect 
Son  of  a  perfect  Father,  and  of  the  Ingenerate  God 
the  Only-generate  Offspring,  (who  from  Him  who  hath 
all  hath  received  all,  God  from  God,  Spirit  from  Spirit, 
Light  from  Light,)  says  confidently  ^  The  Father  in 
Me  and  I  in  the  Father,'  for  as  the  Father  is  Spirit  so 
is  the  Son,  as  the  Father  God  so  is  the  Son,  as  the 
Father  Light  so  is  the  Son.  From  those  thiugs  there- 
fore which  are  in  the  Father,  are  those  in  which  is  the 
Son;  that  is,  of  the  whole  Father  is  born  the  whole 
Son ;  not  from  other,  &c.  .  .  .  not  in  part,  for  in  the 
Son  is  the  fulness  of  Godhead.  What  is  in  the  Father, 
that  too  is  in  the  Son ;  One  from  the  Other  and  Both 
One  (unum) ;  not  Two  One  Person  unus,'  vid.  how- 
ever the  language  of  the  Athan.  Creed,  which  expresses 
itself  differently  after  S.  Austin,)  but  Either  in  Other, 
because  not  Other  in  Either.  The  Father  in  the  Son, 
because  from  Him  the  Son  .  .  .  the  Only-begotten  in 
the  Ingenerate,  because  from  the  Ingenerate  the  Only- 
generate,^^  &c.  Trin.  iii.  4. 

%  And  so  ipya^oaivov  rod  rrarpo^y  ipyd^eaOai  koX  tov 


THE  COINHERENCE. 


79 


VLov.  in  illud  Omn.  1.  Cum  luce  nobis  prodeat. 
In  Patre  totus  Filius^  et  totus  in  Verbo  Pater/^  Hymn. 
Brev.  in  fer.  2.  Ath.  argues  from  this  oneness  of 
operation  tlie  oneness  of  substance.  And  thus  S. 
Chrysostom  thinks  it  right  to  argue  that  if  the 
Father  and  Son  are  one  Kara  rrjv  Svpa/jutv,  They  are  one 
also  in  ovaia,  in  Joan.  Hom.  61,  2,  TertuUian  in 
Prax.  22,  and  S.  Epiphanius,  Haer.  57,  p.  488,  seem  to 
say  the  same  on  the  same  text.  Vid.  Lampe,  Joan.  x.  35. 
And  so  S.  Athan.  rpm?  ahiaipero<^  rjj  ^vaeu,  koX  /una 
TavTT]^  rj  ivepyeca,  Serap.  i.  28;  ev  diXrjfjia  irarpo^; 
fcal  VLOV  fcal  ^ovXrjiia,  eirel  fcal  rj  (^vat^  /x/a.  in  illud 
Omn.  5.  Various  passages  of  the  Fathers  to  the  same 
effect,  (e.g.  of  S.  Ambrose,  ^^si  unius  voluntatis  et 
operationis,  unius  est  essentia,"  de  Sp.  ii.  12  fin.,  and  of 
S.  Basil,  S)v  fjbla  evepyeia,  tovtcov  kol  ovoia  /x/a,  of  Greg. 
Nyss.  and  Cyril.  Alex.)  are  brought  together  in  the 
Lateran  Council.  Concil.  Hard.  t.  3,  p.  859,  &c.  The 
subject  is  treated  at  length  by  Petavius,  Trin.  iv.  15,  §  3. 

As  to  the  very  word  iTepi^(i>pr]ai<;y  Petavius  observes, 
de  Trin.  iv.  16,  §  4,  that  its  first  use  in  ecclesiastical 
writers  was  one  which  Arianism  would  admit  of ;  its 
use  to  express  the  Catholic  doctrine  was  later. 


80 


CUESUS  PUBLICUS. 


OURSUS  PUBLICUS. 


On  the  Cursus  Publicus^  vid.  Gothofred^  in  Cod. 
Theod.  viii.  tit.  5.  It  was  provided  for  the  journeys 
of  the  Emperor^  for  parties  whom  he  summoned^  for 
magistrates^  ambassadors^  and  such  private  persons 
as  the  Emperor  indulged  in  the  use  of  it.  The  use 
was  granted  by  Constantino  to  the  Bishops  summoned 
to  Nicaea,  as  far  as  it  went.  Euseb,  Constant,  iii.  v. 
6.  The  Cursus  Pablicus  brought  the  Bishops  to  the 
Council  of  Tyre^  ibid.  iv.  43.  In  the  conference  be- 
tween Liberius  and  Constantius^  Theod.  Hist.  ii.  13^ 
it  is  objected  that  the  Cursus  Publicus  is  not  sufficient 
to  convey  Bishops  to  the  Council  which  Liberius  con- 
templates. Constantius  answers  that  the  Churches  are 
rich  enough  to  convey  their  Bishops  as  far  as  the  sea. 
Thus  S.  Hilary  was  compelled  (^^  data  evectionis  copia/* 
Sulp.  Hist.  ii.  57)  to  attend  at  Seleucia^  and  Athan.  at 
Tyre.  Julian  complains  of  the  abuse  of  the  Cursus 
Publicus,  perhaps  with  an  allusion  to  these  Councils  of 
Constantius,  vid.  Cod.  Theod.  viii.  5,  §  12,  where 
Gothofred  quotes  Libanius^s  Epitaph  in  Julian,  t.  i. 
p.  569,  ed.  Reize.  Vid.  the  passage  in  Ammianus,  who 
speaks  of  the  Councils  being  the  ruin  of  the  res 
vehicularia,  Hist.  xxi.  16.  The  Eusebians  at  Philippopo- 
lis  say  the  same  thing.  Hil.  fragm.  iii.  25.  The  Emperor 
provided  board  and  perhaps  lodging  for  the  Bishops  at 


CURSUS  PUBLICUS. 


81 


Ariminum^  whicli  the  Bishops  of  Aquitaine^  Gaul,  and 
Britain  declined,  excepting  three  British  by  reason  of 
poverty,  Snip.  ii.  56.  Hunneric  in  Africa,  after  as- 
sembling 466  Bishops  at  Carthage,  dismissed  them 
without  conveyances,  provision,  or  baggage.  Vict. 
Ut.  iv.  fin.  In  the  Emperor's  letter  before  the  sixth 
Ecumenical  Council,  a.d.  678  (Hard.  Cone.  t.  3,  p.  1048 
fin.),  he  says  he  has  given  orders  for  the  convey- 
ance and  maintenance  of  its  members.  Pope  John 
VIII.  (a.d.  876)  reminds  Ursus,  Duke  of  Venice,  of  the 
same  duty  of  providing  for  the  members  of  a  Council, 

secundum  pios  principes,  qui  in  talibus  munifice 
semper  erant  intenti.^^  Colet.  Concil.  t.  xi.  p.  14, 
Venet.  1730. 

Gibbon  says  that  by  the  Government  conveyances 
^^it  was  easy  to  travel  100  miles  in  a  day,'^  ch.  ii. ; 
but  the  stages  were  of  different  lengths,  sometimes  a 
day's  journey.  Const,  in  Hilar.  Psalm.  118,  Lit.  5,  2 
(as  over  the  Delta  to  Pelusium,  and  then  coasting  all 
the  way  to  Antioch),  sometimes  half  a  day's  journey, 
Herman,  ibid.  Vid.  also  Ambros.  in  Psalm.  118,  Serm. 
5,  5.  The  halts  were  called  fioval  or  mansiones,  and 
properly  meant  the  building  where  soldiers  or  other 
public  officials  rested  at  night ;  hence  applied  to 
monastic  houses,  a  statement  which,  if  correct,  dis- 
connects the  word  from  /^dz/o?.  Such  buildings  included 
granaries,  stabling,  &c.  Vid.  Cod.  Theod.  t.  1,  p.  47, 
t.  2,  p.  507;  Ducange,  Gloss,  t.  1,  p.  426,  col.  2. 


VOL.  II. 


G 


82 


DEFINITIONS. 


DEFINITIONS. 

Peom  the  first  the  Church  had  the  power^  by  its 
divinely  appointed  representatives,  to  declare  the  truth 
upon  such  matters  in  the  revealed  message  or  gospel- 
tidings  as  from  time  to  time  came  into  controversy 
(for,  unless  it  had  this  power,  how  could  it  be  the 

columna  et  firmamentum  veritatis  ?)  ;  and  these  re- 
presentatives, of  course,  were  the  Rulers  of  the  Chris- 
tian people  who  received,  as  a  legacy,  the  depositum 
of  doctrine  from  the  Apostles,  and  by  means  of  it,  as 
need  arose,  exercised  their  oflSce  of  teaching.  Each 
Bishop  was  in  his  own  place  the  Doctor  Ecclesiae  for 
his  people ;  there  was  an  appeal,  of  course,  from  his 
decision  to  higher  courts  ;  to  the  Bishops  of  a  province, 
of  a  nation,  of  a  patriarchate,  to  the  Roman  Church,  to 
the  Holy  See,  as  the  case  might  be ;  and  thus  at  length 
a  final  determination  was  arrived  at,  which  in  conse- 
quence was  the  formal  teaching  of  the  Church,  and,  as 
far  as  it  was  direct  and  categorical,  was,  from  the 
reason  of  the  case,  the  Word  of  God.  And  being  such, 
was  certain,  irreversible,  obligatory  on  the  inward  belief 
and  reception  of  all  subjects  of  the  Church,  or  what  is 
called  de  fide. 

All  this  could  not  be  otherwise  if  Christianity  was 
to  teach  divine  truth  in  contrast  to  the  vague  opinions 
and  unstable  conjectures  of  human  philosophers  and 


DEFINITIONS. 


83 


moralists,  and  if,  as  a  plain  consequence,  it  must  have 
authoritative  organs  of  teaching,  and  if  trae  doctrines 
never  can  be  false,  but  what  is  once  true  is  always 
true.  What  the  Church  proclaims  as  true  never  can  be 
put  aside  or  altered,  and  therefore  such  truths  are 
called  opiaOevra  or  opoL,  definitions,  as  being  boundaries 
or  landmarks.    Vid.  Athan.  Decret.  §  2. 

%  Decrees  or  definitions  of  Councils  come  to  us  as 
formal  notices  or  memoranda^  setting  forth  in  writing 
what  has  ever  been  held  orally  or  implicitly  in  the 
Church.  Hence  the  frequent  use  of  such  phrases  as 
iyypa(f)m  e^ereOrj  with  reference  to  thetn.  Thus 
Damasus,  Theod.  Hist.  v.  10,  speaks  of  that  ^^aposto- 
lical faith,  which  was  set  forth  in  writing  by  the  Fathers 
in  Nicaaa.^^  On  the  other  hand,  Ephrem  of  Antioch 
speaks  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  perfect  humanity 
being  inculcated  by  our  Holy  Fathers,  but  not  as  yet 
[i.e.  till  the  Council  of  Chalcedon]  being  confirmed  by 
the  decree  of  an  Ecumenical  Council.'^  Phot.  229,  p. 
801.  (e77/3a(/)ft)?,  however,  sometimes  relates  to  the  act 
of  the  Bishops  in  subscribing.  Phot,  ihid,,  or  to  Scrip- 
ture, Clement.  Strom,  i.  init.  p.  321.)  Hence  Athan. 
says,  ad  Afros  1  and  2,  that  the  Word  of  the  Lord, 
which  was  given  through  the  Ecumenical  Council  in 
Nicaea  rernainetJifor  ever  and  uses  against  its  opposcrs 
the  texts,  Remove  not  the  ancient  landmark  which 
thy  fathers  have  set  (vid.  also  Dionysius  in  Eus.  Hist, 
vii.  7),  and  He  that  curseth  his  father  or  his  mother 
shall  surely  be  put  to  death.''  Prov.  22,  28,  Ex.  21, 
17;  vid.  also  Athan.  ad  Epict.  1.  And  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  professes  to     drive  away  the  doctrines  of 

G  2 


84 


'definitions. 


error  by  a  common  decree^  and  renew  the  unswerving 
faith  of  the  Fathers/^  Act.  v.  p.  452^  according  as 
from  of  old  the  prophets  spoke  of  Christy  and  He  Him- 
self instructed  us^  and  the  creed  of  the  Fathers  has 
delivered  to  us/^  whereas  ^'  other  faith  it  is  not  lawful 
for  any  to  bring  forth,  or  to  write^  or  to  draw  up,  or 
to  hold,  or  to  teach/^  p.  456. 

H  And  so  S.  Leo  passim  concerning  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  Concord  will  be  easily  established,  if  the 
hearts  of  all  concur  in  that  faith,  which,  &c.,  no  discus- 
sion being  allowed  whatever  with  a  view  to  retracta- 
tion,^^ Ep.  94.  He  calls  such  an  act  a  magnum 
sacrilegium.^^  Ep.  157,  c.  3.  *^  To  be  seeking  for  what 
has  been  perfected,  to  tear  up  what  has  been  laid  down 
(definita),  what  is  this  but  to  be  unthankful  for  what 
we  gained  ?  Ep.  162,  vid.  the  whole  of  it.  He  says 
that  the  attempt  is  no  mark  of  a  peacemaker  but  a 
rebel,''  Ep.  164,  c.  1  fin. ;  vid.  also  Epp.  145  and  156, 
where  he  says,  none  can  assail  what  is  once  determined, 
but    aut  antichristus  aut  diabolus,'^  c.  2. 

%  When  at  Seleucia  Acacius  said,  If  the  Nicene 
faith  has  been  altered  once  and  many  times  since,  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  dictate  another  faith  now,'^ 
Eleusius  the  Semi-Arian  answered,  This  Council  is 
convoked,  not  to  learn  what  it  does  not  know,  not  to 
receive  a  faith  which  it  does  not  possess,  but  walking 
in  the  faith  of  the  Fathers,"  (meaning  the  Semi-Arian 
Council  of  the  Dedication,  a.d.  341,  vid.  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  96), 
*4t  swerves  not  from  it  in  life  or  death.''  On  this  Socrates 
(Hist.  ii.  40)  observes,  *^  How  call  you  those,  who  met 
at  Antioch,  Fathers,  O  Eleusius,  you  who  deny  their 


DEFINITIONS. 


85 


Fathers  ?  for  those  who  met  at  Nicgea^  and  who  unani- 
mously professed  the  Consubstantial^  might  more 
properly  receive  the  name^  &c.  But  if  the  Bishops  at 
Antioch  set  at  nought  their  own  fathers^  those  who 
come  after  are  blindly  following  parricides  ;  and  how 
did  they  receive  a  valid  ordination  from  them^  whose 
faith  they  set  at  nought  as  reprobate  ?  But  if  those 
had  not  the  Holy  Ghost^  which  cometh  through  laying 
on  of  hands^  neither  did  these  receive  the  priesthood ; 
for  did  they  receive  from  those  who  have  not  where- 
with to  give  ? 

IT  This  reconsideration  of  points  once  settled  Athan. 
all  through  his  works  strenuously  resists^  and  with 
more  consistency  than  the  Semi-Arians  at  Seleucia. 
And  so  in  their  Letter  the  Fathers  at  Ariminum  ob- 
serve that  the  Emperor  had  commanded  them  to  treat 
of  the  faith/^  to  which  ambiguous  phrase  they  reply  that 
they  mean  rather  to  adhere  to  the  faith^  and  to 
reject  all  novelties.  At  Sardica  indeed  the  Council 
writes  to  Pope  Julius,  that  the  Emperors  Constantius 
and  Constans  had  proposed  three  subjects  for  its  con- 
sideration :  first,  that  all  points  in  discussion  should 
be  debated  afresh  (de  integro),  and  above  all  concerning 
the  holy  faith  and  the  integrity  of  the  truth  which  [the 
Arians]  had  violated/^  Hil.  Fragm.  ii.  11.  Enemies  of 
the  Arians  too  seem  to  have  wished  this  as  well  as 
themselves;  but  the  Council  got  into  difficulty  in  con- 
sequence. Hosius  the  president  and  Protogenes 
Bishop  of  the  place  wrote  to  the  Pope  to  explain, 

from  fear/^  says  Sozomen,  lest  some  might  think 
that  there  was  any  innovation  upon  the  Nicene  de- 


86 


DEFINITIONS. 


crees/^  iii.  12.  However^  from  his  way  of  stating  the 
matter^  Sozomen  seems  to  have  himself  believed  that 
the  Council  did  publish  a  creed.  And^  in  fact,  a 
remarkable  confession,  and  a  confession  attributed  to 
the  Council,  does  exist.  Accordingly  Athanasius, 
Eusebius  of  Vercellae,  and  the  Council  of  Alexandria, 
A.D.  362,  protest  against  the  idea  of  a  treatment  de 
integro,  It  is  true,^^  they  say,  that  certain  persons 
wished  to  add  to  the  Nicene  Council  as  if  there  was 
something  wanting,  but  the  Holy  Council  was  dis- 
pleased/^ &c.  Tom.  ad  Antioch.  §  5.  However, 
Vigilius  of  Thapsus  repeats  the  report,  contr.  Eutych. 
V.  init. 

IT  This,  however,  did  not  interfere  with  their  adding 
without  undoing,  For,^^  says  Vigilius,  if  it  were 
unlawful  to  receive  aught  further  after  the  Nicene 
statutes,  on  what  authority  venture  we  to  assert  that 
the  Holy.  Ghost  is  of  one  substance  with  the  Father, 
which  it  is  notorious  was  there  omitted  ?  contr. 
Eutych.  V.  init.  He  gives  other  instances,  some  in 
point,  others  not ;  vid.  also  Eulogius,  apud  Phot.  Cod. 
23,  pp.  829,  853.  Yet  to  add  to  the  confession  of  the 
Church  is  not  to  add  to  the  faithy  since  nothing  can  be 
added  to  the  faith.  Leo,  Ep.  124,  p.  1237.  Nay,  Athan. 
says  that  the  Nicene  faith  is  sufficient  to  refute  every 
heresy,  ad  Max.  5,  fin.,  also  Leo,  Ep.  54,  p.  956,  and 
Naz.  Ep.  102  init.,  excepting,  however,  the  doctrine  of 
the  Holy  Spirit;  which  explains  his  meaning.  The 
Henoticon  of  Zeno  says  the  same,  but  with  the  intention 
of  dealing  a  blow  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Evagr. 
iii.  14,  p.  345. 


DEFINITIONS. 


87 


%  Aetius  of  Constantinople  at  Ciialcedon  says 
that  at  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  tlie  Fathers  did 
not  profess  to  draw  up  an  exposition  of  faith,  and 
that  Cyril  and  Leo  did  but  ^'interpret  the  Creed/^  Cone. 
Hard.  t.  2,  p.  428.  Leo  even  says  that  the  Apostles^ 
Creed  is  sufficient  against  all  heresies^  and  that 
Eutyches  erred  on  a  point  of  which  our  Lord  wished 
no  one  of  either  sex  in  the  Church  to  be  ignorant/^  and 
he  wishes  Eutyches  to  take  the  plenitude  of  the  Creed 
^^puro  et  simplici  corde.''^   Ep.  31^  p.  857,  8. 


88 


DEIFICATION. 


DEIFICATION. 

The  titles  whicli  "belong  to  the  Divine  Word  by- 
nature^  are  by  grace  given  to  us,  a  wonderful  privilege, 
of  which,  the  Arians  showed  their  sense,  not  by  teaching 
the  elevation  of  the  creature  to  the  Son  of  God,  but 
by  lowering  the  Son  to  the  level  of  the  creature.  The 
means  by  which  these  titles  become  ours  are  our  real 
participation  (j^ero'xrj)  of  the  Son  by  His  presence 
within  us,  a  participation  so  intimate  that  in  one  sense 
He  can  be  worshipped  in  us  as  being  His  temple  or 
shrine.    Vid.  arts.  In-dwelling  and  iierovata, 

Athanasius  insists  on  this  doctrine  aofain  and  aorain. 

^  The  Word  was  made  flesh  in  order  to  offer  up 
this  body  for  all,  and  that  we,  partaking  of  His  Spirit, 
might  be  made  gods/^  Deer.  §  14, 

^  While  all  things  which  are  made,  have  by 
participation  {eic  iieTovaia^)  the  grace  of  God,  He  is  the 
Father^s  Wisdom  and  Word,  of  whom  all  things 
partake.  It  follows  that  He,  being  the  deifying  and 
enlightening  power  of  the  Father,  in  which  all  things 
are  deified  and  quickened,  is  not  alien  in  substance 
from  the  Father,  but  one  in  substance. Syn.  §  51. 

^  He  was  not  man,  and  then  became  God,  but  He 
was  God,  and  then  became  man,  and  that  to  make  us 
gods.''    Orat.  i.  §  39. 

^     This  is  our  grace  and  high  exaltation,  that  even 


DEIFICATION. 


89 


when  He  became  man^  the  Son  of  God  is  worshipped, 
and  the  heavenly  powers  are  not  startled  at  all  of  us, 
who  are  one  body  with  Him,  being  introduced  into 
their  realms/^  ibid.  §  42. 

^  Because  of  our  relationship  to  His  body,  we 
too  have  become  God^s  Temple,  and  in  consequence 
are  made  God^s  Sons,  so  that  even  in  us  the  Lord 
is  now  worshipped,  and  beholders  report,  as  the 
Apostle  says,  that  ^  God  is  in  them  of  a  truth. ^ 
ibid.  §  43. 

^  God  created  Him  for  our  sakes,  because  of  us, 
preparing  for  Him  that  created  body,  that  in  Him  we 
might  be  capable  of  being  renewed  and  made  gods.^^ 
Orat.  ix.  §  47. 

^  Therefore  did  He  assume  the  body  generate  and 
human,  that,  having  renewed  it  as  its  framer.  He 
might  make  it  god.  .  .  .  For  man  had  not  been  made 
god,  if  joined  to  a  creature,  .  .  .  the  union  was  of  this 
kind,  .  .  .  that  his  salvation  and  deification  might  be 
sure.''  ibid.  §  70. 

Although  there  be  but  one  Son  by  nature,  True  and 
Only-begotten,  we  too  become  sons,  .  .  .  and,  though 
we  are  men  from  the  earth,  we  are  yet  called  gods  .  .  . 
as  has  pleased  God  who  has  given  us  that  grace.''  Orat. 
iii.  §  19. 

^  As  we  are  sons  and  gods,  because  of  the  Word  in 
us,  so  shall  we  be  in  the  Son  and  in  the  Father, 
because  the  Spirit  is  in  us."  ibid.  §  25. 

We  men  are  made  gods  by  the  Word,  as  being 
joined  to  Him  through  His  flesh."  ibid.  §  34. 

^     That  He  might  redeem  mankind  .  .  .  that  He 


90 


DEIFICATION. 


might  hallow  them  and  make  them  gods^  the  Word 
became  flesh/^  ibid.  §  39. 

IT  What  is  this  advance  but  the  deifying  and  grace 
imparted  from  Wisdom  to  men  ?    ibid.  §  53. 

Vid.  also  Adelph.  4;  Scrap,  i.  24;  Cyr.  in  Joann. 
p.  74  j  Theod.  Hist.  p.  846  init. 


ECONOMICAL  LANGUAGE. 


91 


ECONOMICAL  LANGUAGE. 

^  By  Economical/^  I  mean  language  relating  to 
matters  beyond  tlie  direct  apprehension  of  those  to 
whom  it  is  addressed,  and  which,  in  order  to  have  a 
chance  of  conveying  to  them  any  idea,  however  faint, 
of  the  fact,  must  be  more  or  less  of  an  analogous  or 
figurative  character,  as  viewed  relatively  to  the  truths 
which  it  professes  to  report,  instead  of  a  direct  and 
literal  statement  of  the  things  which  have  to  be  conveyed. 
Thus  a  child^s  idea  of  a  king  is  that  of  a  man  richly 
dressed  with  a  crown  and  sceptre,  sitting  on  a  throne ; 
thus  an  attempt  might  be  made  to  convey  to  a  blind  man 
the  character  of  scarlet  contrasted  with  other  colours 
by  telling  him  that  it  is  like  the  sound  of  a  trumpet ; 
thus,  since  none  of  us  can  imagine  to  ourselves  a  spirit 
and  its  properties,  it  is  a  received  economy  to  represent 
Angels  as  bright  beings  with  wings.  Hence,  again, 
it  is  an  economy  to  speak  of  our  Lord  as  sitting  on 
the  right  hand  of  God,  as  if  right  and  left  were  possible 
in  Him ;  and,  indeed.  Scripture  is  necessarily  full  of 
economies,  when  speaking  of  heavenly  things,  because 
there  is  no  other  way  of  introducing  into  our  minds 
even  a  rude  idea,  even  any  idea  at  all,  of  matters  so 
utterly  out  of  our  experience.  About  such  economies 
in  the  statement  of  revealed  truths,  two  rules  must 
be  observed. 


92 


ECONOMICAL  LANGUAGE. 


First,  while  aware  of  their  imperfection  as  informa- 
tions, still  we  must  keep  strictly  to  what  is  told  us  in 
them,  because  we  cannot  know  more  exactly  what  is 
told  us  in  them  than  they  tell  us.  Thus  we  read,  God 
is  a  consuming  fire ;  now  fire  is  a  material  substance, 
and  cannot  literally  belong  to  the  Divine  Nature ;  but 
it  is  the  only,  or  at  least  the  truest,  mode  in  which  His 
nature,  in  a  certain  relation  to  us,  can  be  brought 
home  to  us,  and  we  must  accept  it  and  believe  it  as  a 
substantial  truth,  in  spite  of  its  not  being  the  whole 
truth  or  the  exact  impress  of  the  truth.  Secondly,  it 
must  be  recollected  that  we  cannot  argue  and  deduce 
freely  from  economical  language  as  if  it  were  adequate 
and  complete,  and  that  in  revealed  matters  we  may  fall 
into  serious  error,  if  we  argue  and  deduce  except  under 
the  magisterium  of  the  Church.  Thus  it  is  that  some 
Calvinists  have  argued  against  freewill  from  St.  Peter^s 
words  in  his  first  Epistle  (^^Ye,  as  living  stones,  are 
built  up  a  spiritual  house,'^)  thus,  This  is  giving  free- 
will a  stab  under  the  fifth  rib,  for  can  stones  build  them- 
selves ?  Copleston  on  Predestinat.  p.  129.  And  thus 
it  was,  that  Arius  argued,  from  the  economical  word 
Son,  (given  us  as  the  nearest  approximation  in  human 
language  to  the  inefi'able  truth  itself,)  that  our  Lord  was 
not  the  everlasting  God,  because  human  sons  have  a 
beginning  of  existence. 

Hence  it  is  that  mystery  is  the  necessary  note  of 
divine  revelation,  that  is,  mystery  subjectively  to  the 
human  mind  :  because,  when  the  mind  goes  on  freely  to 
reason  from  language  which  only  partially  corresponds 
to  eternal  truths,  and  which  cannot  be  adequately 


ECONOMICAL  LANGUAGE. 


93 


expressed  in  human  words^  it  draws  from  one  revealed 
information  what  is  inconsistent  with  what  it  draws  from 
another^  and  instead  of  sayings  ^'  This  collision  of 
dedactions  arises  from  the  imperfection  of  our  know- 
ledge/^ it  refuses  to  accept  premisses  which  are 
serviceable  only  in  the  sense  and  to  the  extent  in 
which  they  are  intended.  This  is  acting  like  a 
reasoner  who,  having  learned  some  geometrical  truths 
by  means  of  arithmetic  or  algebra,  and  having  found 
that  by  multiplying  a  quantity  into  itself,  and  again 
into  itself,  he  could  reach  a  number  which  in  its 
properties  was  parallel  to  a  geometrical  cube,  should  in 
consequence  go  on  to  multiply  once  more,  and  then 
should  consider  that  he  had  been  brought  to  the 
absurdity  of  a  fourth  dimension  in  space,  and  should 
forthwith  withdraw  his  faith  from  algebraical  deductions 
altogether.  Vid.  art.  Trinity,  also  Illustrations ,  and 
others. 

^  Sach  illustrations  and  such  images,^^  says  Atha- 
nasius,  has  Scripture  proposed,  that,  considering  the 
inability  of  human  nature  to  comprehend  God,  we 
might  be  able  to  form  ideas  even  from  these,  however 
poorly  and  dimly,  as  far  as  is  attainable.''^  Orat.  ii.  32, 
afjbvhpco^,  vid.  also  a/juvSpa;  ii.  17. 

^  Elsewhere,  after  adducing  the  illustration  of  the 
sun  and  its  light,  he  adds,  ^^From  things  familiar  and 
ordinary  we  may  use  some  poor  illustration,  and  repre- 
sent intellectually  what  is  in  our  mind,  since  it  were 
presumptuous  to  intrude  upon  the  incomprehensible 
Nature.^^  in  Illud  Omnia  3  fin.  Vid.  also  6;  also 
Scrap,  i.  20,  and  Deer.  §  12.    And  S.  Austin^  after  an 


94 


ECONOMICAL  LANGUAGE. 


illustration  from  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  pro- 
ceeds: ^^Par  other  are  these  Three  and  that  Trinity.  .  . 
When  a  man  hath  discovered  something  in  them  and 
stated  it,  let  him  not  at  once  suppose  that  he  has  dis- 
covered what  is  above  him/^  &c.  Confess,  xiii.  11. 
And  again,  ^^Ne  hanc  imaginem  ita  comparet  Trinitati, 
ut  omni  modo  existimet  similem.^^  Trin.  xv.  39.  And 
S.  Basil  says,  '^Let  no  one  urge  against  what  I  say, 
that  the  illustrations  do  not  in  all  respects  answer  to 
the  matters  in  question.  For  it  is  not  possible  to 
apply  with  exactness  what  is  little  and  low  to  things 
divine  and  eternal,  except  so  far  as  to  refute/^  &c. 
contr.  Eunom.  ii.  17. 

IT  Scripture  is  full  of  mysteries,  but  they  are  mys- 
teries of  fact,  not  of  words.  Its  dark  sayings  or 
asnigmata  are  such,  because  in  the  nature  of  things  they 
cannot  be  expressed  clearly.  Hence  contrariwise, 
Oratii.  §  77  fin.  he  calls  Prov.  8,  22  an  enigma,  with  an 
allusion  to  Prov.  1,  6,  Sept.  In  like  manner  S.  Ambrose 
says,  Mare  est  scriptura  divina,  habens  in  se  sensus 
profundos,  et  altitudinem  propheticorum  cenigmatum,'^ 
&c.  Ep.  ii.  3.  What  is  commonly  called  explaining 
away  Scripture,  is  the  transference  of  this  obscurity 
from  the  subject  to  the  words  used. 

^  Nothing  is  more  common  in  theology  than  large 
comparisons  which  are  only  parallel  to  a  certain  point  as 
regards  the  matter  in  hand^  especially  since  many 
doctrines  do  not  admit  of  exact  illustrations.  Our 
Lord^s  real  manhood  and  imputed  sinfulness  were  alike 
adjuncts  to  His  Divine  Person,  which  was  of  an  Eternal 
and  Infinite  Nature ;  and  therefore  His  Manhood  may 


ECONOMICAL  LANGUAGE. 


95 


be  compared  to  an  Attribute^  or  to  an  accident^  without 
meaning  that  it  really  was  either.  The  Athan.  Creed 
compares  the  Hypostatic  Union  to  that  of  soul  and 
body  in  one  man,  which,  as  taken  literally  by  the 
Monophysites,  became  their  heresy.  Again  S.  Cyril 
says,  As  the  Bread  of  the  Eucharist,  after  the  invo- 
cation of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  mere  bread  no  longer,  but 
the  body  of  Christ,  so  also  this  holy  ointment  is  no 
more  simple  ointment,^^  &c.  Catech.  xxi.  3,  Oxf.  Tr, ; 
but  no  Catholic  thinks  that  S.  Cyril  held  either  a  change 
in  the  chrism,  or  no  change  in  the  bread.  Hence  again 
we  find  the  Arians  arguing  from  John  xvii,  1 1,  that  our 
union  with  the  Holy  Trinity  is  as  that  of  the  Adorable 
Persons  with  Each  Other ;  vid.  Euseb.  Eccl.  Theol. 
iii.  19,  and  Athanasius  replying  to  the  argument, 
Orat.  iii.  17 — 25.  And  so  As  we,  receiving  the 
Spirit,  do  not  lose  our  own  proper  substance,  so  the 
Lord,  when  made  man  for  us  and  bearing  a  body,  was 
no  less  God,^^  Deer.  §  14 ;  yet  He  was  God  made  man, 
and  we  are  but  the  temple  of  God.  And  again  Atha- 
nasius compares  the  Incarnation  to  our  Lord^s  presence 
in  the  world  of  nature.    Incarn.  41,  42. 


96 


ECUMENICAL. 


ECUMENICAL. 

This  name  was  given  from  the  first  to  Councils  of 
the  whole  Church,  whose  definitions  could  not  be  altered,, 
vid.  art.  Definitions.  Athan.  twice  in  his  Deer,  calls  the 
Nicene  by  this  name,  viz.  §  4  and  §  27.  Are  they  not 
committing  a  crime  to  gainsay  so  great  and  ecumenical 
a  Council  ?  §  4,  and  the  devil  alone  persuades  you  to 
slander  the  ecumenical  Council/'  §  27;  vid.  also  Orat. 
i.  §  7 ;  ad  Afros  2  twice ;  Apol.  contr.  Arian.  7  ;  ad 
Ep.  Mg.  5 ;  Epiph.  Haer.  70,  9 ;  Euseb.  Vit.  Const, 
iii.  6.  The  second  General  Council,  a.d.  381,  took  the 
name  of  ecumenical,  vid  Can.  6  fin. ;  but  incidentally. 
The  Council  of  Ephesus  so  styles  itself  in  the  opening 
of  its  Synodical  Letter. 


EUSEBIUS. 


97 


EUSEBIUS. 

ViD.  arts.  Semi'Arianism  and  Asterius  for  a  notice 
of  the  symbol  of  the  o/jlocovctlov,  in  opposition  to  the 
orthodox  6/bioovatop  and  ovala^;  on  the  one  hand^ 
and  to  avofioLov  on  the  other.  Eusebius  is  one  of  the 
special  supporters  of  this  form  of  heresy.  Asterius 
is  another  (vid.  art.  Avian  Leaders) ;  the  statements 
set  down  here  and  under  the  title  Asterius  are 
mainly  taken  from  what  we  find  in  their  controversial 
works. 

IF  In  his  Letter  to  his  people^  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  55, 
&c.,  Eusebius  scarcely  commits  himself  to  any  posi- 
tive sense  in  which  the  formula  of  the  substance 
(e^  ovaia<;)j  is  to  be  interpreted,  but  only  says  what  it 
does  not  mean.  His  comment  on  it  is  of  the  Father, 
but  not  as  a  part ;  where,  what  is  not  negative, 
instead  of  being  an  explanation,  is  but  a  recurrence  to 
the  original  words  of  Scripture,  of  the  Father,^^  of 
which  ovaLas  itself  is  the  explanation ;  a  curious 
inversion.  He  says,  that  the  Son  is  not  like  the 
radiance  of  light  so  far  as  this,  that  the  radiance  is 
an  inseparable  accident  of  substance,  whereas  the 
Son  is  by  the  Father^s  will,  Kara  yvcofjirjv  koL  irpoaipeaiv, 
Dem.  Ev.  iv.  3.  (vid.  art.  BovXrjai^;).  And  though 
he  insists  on  our  Lord  being  alone  i/c  Oeov,  yet  he 
VOL.  II.  ir 


98 


EUSEBIUS. 


means  in  tlie  sense  whicli  Athan.  refutes^  Deer.  §  7,  viz. 
that  He  alone  was  created  immediately  from  God.  It 
is  true  tliat  he  plainly  condemns  with  the  Nicene  Creed 
the  ovK  ovTcov  of  the  Arians,  the  Son  was  out  of 
nothing/^  but  an  evasion  was  at  hand  here  also;  for 
he  not  only  adds,  according  to  Arian  custom,  not  as 
others/^  but  he  has  a  theory  that  no  being  whatever 
is  out  of  nothing,  for  non-existence  cannot  be  the 
cause  of  existence.  God,  he  says,  proposed  His  own 
will  and  power  as  a  sort  of  matter  and  substance  of  the 
production  and  constitution  of  the  universe,  so  that  it 
is  not  reasonably  said,  that  anything  is  out  of  nothing. 
For  what  is  from  nothing  cannot  be  at  all.  How 
indeed  can  nothing  be  to  anything  a  cause  of  being  ? 
but  all  that  is,  takes  its  being  from  One  who  only 
is  and  was,  who  also  said,  ^  I  am  that  I  am.''  Dem. 
Ev.  iv.  1.  Again,  speaking  of  our  Lord,  He  who 
was  from  nothing  would  not  truly  be  Son  of  God,  as 
neither  is  any  other  of  things  generatej^  Eccl.  Theol. 
i.  9  fin. 

IT  He  distinctly  asserts,  Dem.  Ev.  iv.  2,  that  our  Lord 
is  a  creature.  This  ofFspring,^^  he  says,  did  He 
first  produce  Himself  from  Himself  as  a  foundation  of 
those  things  which  should  succeed ;  the  perfect  handi- 
work, SrjfjLiovpyrj/jia,  of  the  Perfect,  and  the  wise  structure 
apxf^reKTovrjfjia,  of  the  Wise,^^  &c.  It  is  true  in  his  Lett. 
§  6,  he  grants  that  He  was  not  a  work  resembling  the 
things  which  through  Him  came  to  be  but  this  again 
is  only  the  ordinary  Arian  evasion  of  an  ofi*spring,  not 
as  the  offsprings.^^  E.g.  It  is  not  without  peril  to 
say  recklessly  that  the  Son  is  generate  out  of  nothing 


EUSEBIUS. 


99 


similarlij  to  the  other  geiierates.^^  Dem.  Ev.  v.  1  ;  vid. 
also  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  9,  iii.  2.  And  lie  considers  our  Lord 
the  only  Son  by  a  divine  provision  similar  to  that  by 
which  there  is  only  one  sun  in  the  firmament,  as  a 
centre  of  light  and  heat.  Such  an  Only-begotten 
Son,  the  excellent  artificer  of  His  will  and  operator, 
did  the  supreme  God  and  Father  of  that  operator 
Himself  first  of  all  beget,  through  Him  and  in  Him 
giving  subsistence  to  the  operative  words  (ideas  or 
causes)  of  things  which  were  to  be,  and  casting  in  Him 
the  seeds  of  the  constitution  and  governance  of  the 
universe;  .  .  .  Therefore  the  Father  being  one,  it 
behoved  the  Son  to  be  one  also ;  but  should  any  one 
object  that  He  did  not  constitute  more,  it  is  fitting  for 
such  a  one  to  complain  that  He  constituted  not  more 
suns,  and  moons,  and  worlds,  and  ten  thousand  other 
thinofs/^    Dem.  Ev.  iv.  5  fin.  :  vid.  also  iv.  6. 

^  He  does  not  say  that  our  Lord  is  from  the  substance 
of  the  Father,  but  that  He  has  a  substance  from  the 
Father,  ^^not  from  other  substance,  but  from  the  Father." 
This  is  the  Semi-Arian  doctrine,  which,  whether  con- 
fessing the  Son  from  the  substance  of  the  Father  or 
not,  implied  that  His  substance  was  not  the  Father^s 
substance,  but  a  second  substance.  The  same  doctrine 
is  found  in  the  Semi-Arians  of  Ancyra,  though  they 
seem  to  have  confessed,  of  the  substance."'^  And 
this  is  one  object  of  the  6/jloov(tcop,  to  hinder  the  con- 
fession of  the  substance  "  from  implying  a  second 
substance,  which  was  not  obviated  or  was  even 
encouraged  by  the  oixoiovcnov.  The  Council  of  Ancyra, 
quoting  the  text     As  the  Father  hath  life  in  Himself, 

H  2 


100 


EUSEBIUS. 


so/^  &c.^  says  since  the  life  whicli  is  ia  tlie  Father 
means  substance,  and  the  life  of  the  Only-begotten 
who  is  begotten  from  the  Father  means  substance, 
the  word  *"  so  ^  implies  a  likeness  of  substance  to  sub- 
stance/^ Epiph.  H99r.  73,  10  fin.  Hence  Busebius  does 
not  scruple  to  speak  of  two  substances/^  and  other 
writers  of  three  substances,  contr.  Marcell.  i.  4,  p.  25. 
He  calls  our  Lord  a  second  substance/^  Dem.  Ev. 
vi.  Praef. ;  Praep.  Ev.  vii.  12,  p.  320,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
a  third  substance,  ibid.  15,  p.  325.  This  it  was  that  made 
the  Latins  so  suspicious  of  three  hypostases,  because 
the  Semi-Arians,  as  well  as  they,  understood  v7r6(TTa(TL<; 
to  mean  substance.  Eusebius  in  like  manner  calls  our 
Lord  another  God,^^  ^^a  second  God/^  Dem.  Ev.  v. 
4,  p.  226,  V.  fin. ;     second  Lord,^^  ibid.  3  init.  6  fin. ; 

second  cause,^^  Dem.  Ev.  v.  Prsef. ;  not  the  True 
God.''  Syn.  §  17,  Concil.  vii.  art.  6,  p.  409.  Vid. 
also  erepov  e^x^ovcra  to  tear  ova  Lav  viroKeiybevov,  Dem.  Ev. 
V.  1,  p.  215;  KaS"  iavrov  ov(TtcojLievo<;y  ibid.  iv.  3.  And 
so  €T€po<;  irapa  rov  irarepa,  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  20,  p.  90 ; 
and  ^corjv  cStav  e'X^cov,  ibid. ;  and  ^cov  koX  vcfyeo-rco^  teal  rov 
irarpo^  vTrdp'X^cov  eKTo<^,  ibid.  Hence  Athan.  insists  so 
much  on  our  Lord  not  being  external  to  the  Father. 
Once  admit  that  He  is  in  the  Father,  and  we  may  call 
the  Father,  the  only  God,  for  then  the  Son  is  included. 
And  so  again  as  to  the  Ingenerate,  the  term  does  not 
exclude  the  Son,  for  He  is  generate  in  the  Ingene- 
rate.   Vid.  ^AyevrjTo^  and  Marcellus, 

IT  The  Semi-Arians,  however,  considering  the  Son  as 
external  to  the  Father,  and  this  as  a  necessary  truth, 
maintained,  in  order  logically  to  escape  Sabellianism,. 


EUSEBIUS. 


101 


that  the  6/jloovctlov  implied  a  separation  or  divulsion  of 
the  Divine  Substance  into  two,  following  the  line  of  ar- 
gument of  Paul  of  Samosata^  who  seems  to  have  stopped 
the  reception  of  that  formula  at  Antioch  in  the  third 
century  by  arguing  that  it  involved  either  Sabellianism 
(vid.  Hilary)  or  materialism  (vid.  Athan.  and  Basil). 
E.g.  Euseb.  Demonstr.  iv.  3^  p.  148,  p.  149,  v.  1,  p. 
213—215;  contr.  Marcell.  i.  4,  p.  20;  Eccl.  Theol. 
i.  12,  p.  73 ;  in  laud.  Const,  p.  525 ;  de  Fide  i.  ap. 
Sirmond.  tom.  i.  p.  7 ;  de  Fide  ii.  p.  16 ;  and  apparently 
his  de  Incorporali.  And  so  the  Semi-Arians  at  Ancyra, 
Epiph.  Haar.  73,  11,  p.  858.  And  so  Meletius,  ibid, 
p.  878  fin.,  and  Cyril  Hier.  Catech.  vii.  5,  xi.  18. 
ov  irdOei  Trarrjp  f^/euojjuevo^y  ovtc  etc  crv/jLirXoKri^^y  ov  /car 
ayvoiav,  ovk.  airop'pevcra^,  ov  /uLeccoOel^;,  ov/c  dXkotcoOek, 
Vid.  also  Eusebius^s  letter  to  his  people  as  given  by 
Athan.  Cyril,  however,  who  had  friends  among  the 
Semi-Arians  and  apparently  took  their  part,  could  not 
be  stronger  on  this  point  than  the  Nicene  Fathers. 

IT  The  only  sense  then  in  which  the  word  ofioovaiov 
could  be  received  by  such  as  Eusebius,  would  seem 
to  be  negative,  unless  it  should  rather  be  taken  as 
a  mere  formula  of  peace;  for  he  says,  ^^We  assented 
&c.  .  .  .  without  declining  even  the  term  ^  Consub- 
stantial,^  peace  being  the  object  which  we  set  before 
us,  and  maintenance  of  the  orthodox  view  .  .  .  ^  Con- 
substantial  with  the  Father '  suggests  that  the  Son  of 
God  bears  no  resemblance  to  the  creatures  which  have 
been  made,  but  that  He  is  in  every  way  after  the 
pattern  of  His  Father  alone  who  begat  Him.^^  Euseb. 
Lett.  §  7.    These  last  words  can  hardly  be  called  an 


102 


EUSEBIUS. 


interpretation  of  ofioovaiov,  for  it  is  but  saying  tliat 
ofjLoovcTLov  means  ofiouovaLov,  whereas  the  two  words 
notoriously  were  antagonistic  to  each  other. 

IF  It  must  be  observed  too  that^  though  the  Semi-Arian 
o/jLOLovcTLov  may  be  taken,  as  it  is  sometimes  by  Athan., 
as  satisfying  the  claims  of  theological  truth,  especially 
when  it  is  understood  in  the  sense  of  a7rapdXkaKT0<; 
elKcbv,  ^'the  exact  image  of  the  Father,  (vid.  Deer. 
§  20,  Theod.  Hist.  i.  4,)  yet  it  could  easily  be  explained 
away.  It  need  mean  no  more  than  a  likeness  of  Son 
to  Father,  such  as  a  picture  to  its  original,  while 
differing  from  it  in  substance.  Two  men  are  not  of 
like  nature,  but  of  the  same  nature ;  tin  is  like  silver, 
but  not  of  the  same  nature/-^  Syn.  §  47 — 50.  Also 
Athan.  notices  that  like  applies  to  qualities  rather 
than  to  substance.  Also  Basil.  Ep.  8,  n.  3 ;  While  in 
itself/^  says  the  same  Father,  it  is  frequently  used 
of  faint  similitudes,  and  falling  very  far  short  of  the 
original.''^  Ep.  9,  n.  3.    But  the  word  ofioovauov  implies 

the  same  in  likeness,^^  ravrov  ry  o/jLoccoaety  that  the 
likeness  may  not  be  considered  analogical,  vid.  Cyril, 
in  Joan.  iii.  5,  p.  302.  Eusebius  makes  no  concealment 
that  it  is  in  this  sense  that  he  uses  the  word  o/jlolovo-lov, 
for  he  says,  Though  our  Saviour  Himself  teaches 
that  the  Father  is  the  only  True,  still  let  me  not  be 
backward  to  confess  Him  also  the  true  God,  as  in  an 
hnage,  and  as  possessed;  so  that  the  addition  of 
^only^  may  belong  to  the  Father  alone  as  Archetype 
^  of  the  Image.  ...  As  supposing  one  king  held  sway, 
and  his  image  was  carried  about  into  every  quarter, 
no  one  in  his  right  mind  would  say  that  those  who 


EUSEBIUS. 


103 


held  sway  were  two,  but  one,  who  w^as  honoured 
through  his  image/^  de  Eccl.  Theol.  ii.  23 ;  vid.  ibid. 
7,  pp.  109,  111. 

^  Accordingly,  instead  of  e|  ovata'^,  which  was  the 
Nicene  formula,  he  held  fxerovaia,  that  is,  like  to  the 
Father  by  participation  of  qualities/^  as  a  creature  may 
be ;  avTrj<^  Tf]<^  TrarptKrjf;  [not  ovaLa<;,  but]  fierovcria^, 
&a7rep  airo  7r?777}9,  ctt'  avrov  irpo^eoiJbevr)<^  TrXTjpovfjbevov, 
Eccl.  Theol.  i.  2.  Whereas  Athan.  says,  ouSe  Kara 
/jLerovaiav  avrov,  aX)C  oXov  l8lov  avrov  yevvrj/jua,  Orat. 
iii.  §  4,  (Disc.  n.  228.)  If  ye  speak  of  the  Son  as 
being  merely  such  by  participation^  /jberova-ia,  then 
call  Him  o/jlolovo-lov,'^  Syn.  53 ;  but  no,  it  is  for  crea- 
tures to  possess  God  /Jberovo-La,  but  when  God  is 
said  to  beget,  this  is  all  one  with  enunciating  the 
ovaia^,  and  a  ivliole  participation.  Vid.  Orat.  i. 
§  16. 

^  Hence  St.  Austin  says,  as  quoted  supr.  Avian  tenets, 
As  the  Father  has  life  in  Himself,  so  hath  He  given 
also  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself,  not  by  partici- 
pating,  but  in  Himself.  For  we  have  not  life  in  our- 
selves, but  in  our  God.  But  that  Father,  who  has  life 
in  Himself,  begat  a  Son  such,  as  to  have  life  in  Himself, 
not  to  become  partaker  of  life,  but  to  he  Himself  life  ; 
and  of  that  life  to  maize  us  partalcers.^^  Serm.  127,  de 
Verb.  Evang.  9. 

^  In  Eusebius^s  Letter  to  Euphration,  as  quoted  in  the 
seventh  Ecum.  Council,  he  introduced  the  usual  Arian 
argument  against  the  Son^s  Eternity.  If  they  co- 
exist, how  shall  the  Father  be  Father  and  the  Son  Son  ? 
or  how  the  One  first,  and  the  Other  second  ?  and  the 


104 


EUSEBIUS. 


One  ingenerate  and  the  Other  generate  ?  Vid.  supr. 
■Avian  tenets. 

^  And  further  he  explained  away  what  Catholics  held 
of  the  eternity  of  the  gennesis  by  insisting  that  God 
was  a  Father  in  posse  from  eternity,  not  in  fact. 
Our  religious  Emperor  did  at  the  time/^  at  Nicaea, 
prove  in  a  speech,  that  our  Lord  was  in  being  even 
according  to  His  Divine  generation,  which  is  before  all 
ages,  since  even  before  He  was  generated  in  fact  He 
was  in  virtue  with  the  Father  ingenerately,  the  Father 
being  always  Father,  as  King  always  and  Saviour 
always,  being  all  things  in  virtue,  and  having  all  things 
in  the  same  respects  and  in  the  same  way/^  Bus. 
Lett.  §  10. 

Theognis  too,  another  of  the  Nicene  Arians,  says  the 
same,  according  to  Philostorgius ;  viz.  *Hhat  God  even 
before^  He  begat  the  Son  was  a  Father,  as  having  the 
power,  Svpa/JLL^;,  of  being  so,^^  Hist.  ii.  15,  16 ;  and  Aste- 
rius.  They  are  answered  by  Catholics,  on  the  ground 
that  Father  and  Son  are  words  of  nature,  but  Creator, 
King,  Saviour,  are  external,  or  what  may  be  called 
accidental  to  Him.  Thus  Athanasius  observes,  that 
Father  actually  implies  Son,  but  Creator  only  the 
power  to  create,  as  expressing  a  SvvafjiL<; ;  a  maker  is 
before  his  works,  but  he  who  says  Father,  forthwith  in 
Father  implies  the  existence  of  the  Son.''^  Orat.  iii.  6. 
{Disc.  n.  231,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  364.)  Vid.  Cyril  too.  Dial, 
ii.  p.  459  ;  Pseudo-Basil,  contr.  Eun.  iv.  1  fin.  On  the 
other  hand  Origen  argues  the  reverse  way,  that  since 
God  is  eternally  a  Father,  therefore  eternally  Creator 
also.  ^^As  one  cannot  be  father  without  a  son,  nor  lord 


EUSEBIUS. 


105 


without  possession^  so  neither  can  God  be  called  All- 
powerful,  without  subjects  of  His  power/^  Periarch. 
i.  2,  n.  10  ;  hence  he  argued  for  the  eternity  of  creation, 
which  Suarez^ after  St.  Thomas,  allows  to  be  abstract- 
edly possible.  Vid.  Theol.  Tracts  ii.  §  11  circ.  fin. 

IT  Athan.  distinguishes  as  follows  :  that,  as  it  is  of 
the  essence  of  a  son  to  be  of  the  nature  of  the  father, 
so  is  it  of  the  essence  of  a  creature  to  be  of  nothing, 

ovK  ovTcov ;  therefore,  while  it  was  not  impossible, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  for  Almighty  God  to  be 
always  Father,  it  icas  impossible  for  the  same  reason 
that  He  should  be  always  a  Creator,  impossible  from 
incapacity,  not  in  the  Infinite,  but  in  the  finite.  Orat. 
i.  29.  Vid.  ibid.  §  58,  where  he  takes  They  shall 
perish/^  in  the  Psalm,  not  as  a  fact,  but  as  the  de- 
finition of  the  nature  of  a  creature.  Also  ii.  §  1,  where 
he  says,  It  is  proper  to  creatures  and  works  to  have 
said  of  them,  ovic  optcov  and  ovfc  rjv  irplv  ysvvrjOfj.'^ 
Vid,  Cyril.  Thesaur.  9,  p.  67.    Dial.  ii.  p.  460. 

It  has  been  above  shown  that  Eusebius  held  with 
Arians  generally  that  our  Lord  was  created  by  the  God 
of  all  in  order  that  He  might  create  all  else.  And  this 
was  because  the  creation  could  not  bear  the  Divine  Hand, 
as  the  Arians  also  said.  Vid.  a  clear  and  eloquent 
passage  in  his  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  8,  also  13,  to  show  that 
our  Lord  was  brouofht  into  being:  before  all  creation,  eVl 
acoTTjpia  Tcjv  6\o)v,  Vid.  also  Demonstr.  iv.  4;  Pra3p.  vii. 
15  ;  but  especially  his  remark,  not  because  the  Father 
was  not  able  to  create,  did  He  begot  the  Son,  but 
because  those  things  which  were  made  were  not  able 
to   sustain  the  power  of  the  Ingenerate,  therefore 


106 


EUSEBIUS. 


speaks  He  through  a  Mediator,'^  contra  Sabell.  i. 
p.  9. 

There  is  another  peculiarity  of  Eusebius^s  view  of  the 
creative  office  of  the  Divine  Word^  in  "^contrast  with 
the  Catholic  doctrine.  It  is  that  the  Word  does  not 
create  from  His  own  designs^  as  being  Himself  really 
the  TVTTo^,  elfccbv,  and  viroypa/jifjia  of  those  things  which 
He  is  creating,  but  that  He  copies  the  Father^s 
patterns  as  an  external  minister.  ^^The  Father  designed 
{SL€TV7rov)  and  prepared  with  consideration,  how,  and 
of  what  shape,  measure,  and  parts.  .  .  .  And  He 
watching  [ivaTevt^cop)  the  Father^s  thoughts,  and  alone 
beholding  the  depths  in  Him,  went  about  the  work, 
subserving  the  Father's  orders  {vevfjuacn)  .  .  .  As  a 
skilful  painter,  talcing  the  archetypal  ideas  from  the 
Father^s  thoughts.  He  transferred  them  to  the  sub- 
stances of  the  works.^^  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  3,  pp.  164,  5. 

In  this  Easebius  follows  the  Platonists ;  so  he  does, 
when  he  attributes  our  Lord^s  Priesthood  to  His 
Divine  Nature,  as  the  Word,  in  which  case  His  human 
sufferings  have  no  part  in  it. 

Moreover,  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  held  that  our 
Lord,  in  becoming  incarnate,  took  on  Him  a  human  soul 
as  well  as  body.  In  His  work  against  Marcellus,  p.  54, 
he  seems  to  grant  his  opponent's  doctrine,  when  he 
says,  €0  /JL6V  '\\rv^rj<;  Stfcrjv  {^iX^)  ^^^^^  avrS  tgS  acofiart ; 
and  at  p.  55  he  seems  to  say  that,  if  the  Word  retired 
from  the  ^coottolo^;  aap^y  the  aap^  would  be  left  dXoyos ; 
vid.  also  ibid.  p.  91. 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


107 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 

1.  The  idea  of  an  Almighty^  All-perfect  Beings  in  its 
fulness  involves  the  belief  of  His  being  the  Father  of 
a  co-equal  Son^  and  this  is  the  first  advance  which  a 
habit  of  devout  meditation  makes  towards  the  intel- 
lectual apprehension  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  as  soon  as  that  doctrine  has  been  received  with 
the  claim  and  the  sanction  of  its  having  been  revealed. 

IT  The  Fathers  speak  as  if  it  were  nothing  short  of 
a  necessary  truth,  involved  in  the  nature  of  things, 
that  One  who  is  infinite  in  His  attributes  should 
subsist  over  again  in  an  infinite  perfect  Image,  Im- 
press, Likeness,  Word,  or  Son,  for  these  names 
denote  the  same  sacred  truth.  A  redundatio  in  ima- 
ginem  or  in  Verbum  is  synonymous  with  a  gene- 
ratio  Filii.  Naturam  et  essentiale  Deitatis,^^  says 
Thomassin,  in  suo  Fonte  assentiuntur  omnes  esse 
plenitudinem  totius  Esse.  At  haec  necesse  est  ut 
statim  exundet  nativa  foecunditate  suti.  Infinitum 
enim  illud  Esse  non  Esse  tantum  est  sed  Esse  totum 
est ;  vivere  id  ipsum  est  intelligere,  sapere  ;  opulentioe 
suae,  bonitatis,  et  sapientiae  rivulos  undique  spargere  ; 
nec  rivulos  tantum,  sed  et  fontem  et  plenitudinem 
ipsam  suam  diff*undere.  Haec  enim  domum  fcocun- 
ditas  Deo  digna,  Deo  par  est,  ut  a  Fonto  bonitatis 
non  rivulus  sed  fiumen  effluat,  nec  extra  efiluat,  sed 


108 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


in  ipsometj  cum  extra  nihil  sit,  quo  ilia  plenitude  capi 
possit/'  de  Trin.  19,  1. 

Thus  Athan.  says,  ^^Let  them  dare  to  say  openly  .  .  that 
the  Fountain  failed  to  beget  Wisdom,  whence  it  would 
follow  that  there  is  no  longer  a  Fountain,  but  a  sort  of 
pool,  as  if  receiving  water  from  without,  yet  usurping 
the  name  of  Fountain.'^  Deer.  §  15;  vid.  also  Orat. 
i.  §  14  and  19.     And  so  77777^  ^VP^y  Serap.  ii.  2  ;  Orat. 

i.  §  14  fin. ;  also  Kapiroyovo^  rj  ovaLay  ii.  §  2,  where 
Athanasius  speaks  as  if  those  who  deny  that  Almighty 
God  is  Father  cannot  really  believe  in  Him  as  a 
Creator.  If  our  Lord  be  not  a  Son,  let  Him  be  called 
a  work  , .  and  let  God  be  called,  not  Father,  but  Framer 
only  and  Creator,  .  .  and  not  of  a  generative  nature. 
But  if  the  Divine  substance  be  not  fruitful  [icap7roy6vo<^) , 
but  barren,  as  they  say,  as  a  light  which  enlightens 
not,  and  a  dry  fountain,  are  they  not  ashamed  to 
maintain  that  He  possesses  the  creative  energy  ? 
Vid.  also  iT7]yr]  Oeorrjro^,   Pseudo-Dion.   Div.  Nom. 

ii.  4;  Trrjyr]  ifc  TrrjyTj^;,  of  the  Son,  Epiphan.  Ancor.  19. 
And  Cyril,  If  thou  take  from  God  His  being  Father, 
thou  wilt  deny  the  generative  power  {/capTroyovop)  of 
the  divine  nature,  so  that  It  no  longer  is  perfect.  This 
then  is  a  token  of  its  perfection,  and  the  Son  who  went 
forth  from  Him  apart  from  time,  is  a  pledge  {a^payh) 
to  the  Father  that  He  is  perfect.-^^  Thesaur.  p.  37.  Vid. 
also  yevvriTLKo^,  Orat.  ii.  §  2,  iii.  §  66,  iv.  §  4  fin. ; 
wyovo^,  i.  14,  19,  and  Sent.  Dion.  15  and  19  ;  rj  ^vcnicr] 
yovLfiorr^^j  Damasc.  F.O.  i.  8;  d/cap7ro<;,  Cyr.  Thes.  p.  45 ; 
Epiph.  Haer.  65,  p.  609 ;  also  the  jevvr]cn<;  and  the 
KTLat^  connected  together,  Orat.  i.  29.    This  doctrine 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


109 


is  briefly  expressed  in  Orat.  iv.  4^  el  ayovo^,  /cat 
av€vepy7]T0<;.  So  much  at  least  is  plain  at  first  sight, 
that  a  divine  gennesis  is  not  more  difficult  to  our 
imagination  than  a  creation  out  of  nothing. 

This  is  the  first  conclusion  which  we  are  in  a  position 
to  draw  under  the  sanction  given  to  our  reasonings  by 
the  revelation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  in 
Unity. 

2.  A  second  conclusion  is  suggested  by  Thomas- 
sin^s  words  towards  the  end  of  the  above  quotation, 

ut  effluat  nec  extra  effluat/^  It  is  the  first  of  truths 
that  there  is  but  one  only  Supreme  Almighty  Being. 
The  Arians  and  others  accused  Catholics,  in  their 
maintenance  of  our  Lord^s  Divinity,  of  virtually  con- 
travening this  initial  doctrine  of  all  faith ;  as  Euseb. 
Eccl.  Theol.  i.  10,  p.  69  ;  and  accordingly  they  insisted 
on  His  being  external,  and  thereby  subordinate  and 
inferior  to  God.  But  this  was  in  fact  to  admit  that 
He  was  not  born  from  Grod  at  all,  but  KeKoXKriaOat  tco 
irarpl  \6yov,  Orat.  iv.  §  3;  and  Marcellas,  according 
to  Euseb ius,  spoke  of  Him  as  rjucoijuevov  tm  Oeo)  \6yov 
(vid.  (Tv/jL^e/3r]fco^),  Athan.  protesting  on  the  other 
hand  a^rainst  the  notion  that  the  Fountain  beerat 
not  wisdom  from  Itself,  but  acquired  it  from  without,^^ 
vid.  supr.  Deer.  §  15,  and  Orat.  iv.  §  4,  and  laying  down 
the  principle  ovSeu  ev  vrpo?  top  irarepa,  el  fjurj  to  avTov. 
Orat.  iv.  17. 

^  But  the  Son  still  was  m  as  well  dsfrnm  the  Father, 
and  this  union  of  distinct  characteristics  in  tho  Son  was 
signified  by  S.  John  by  tho  word  7rpo9,  i.  1,  whereas 
the  Sabellians  preferred  to  say  eV  to)  Oeai,  Hence 


110 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


Easily  o  iv  avOpcoircp  X0709  ov  irpo^  avrov  elvat  Xiyerai 
aX)C  iv  avTcp,  c.  Sabell.  1,  fin.,  but  the  Divine  Son 
was  7rpo9  Tov  debv,  not  ev  tco  0€m.  It  was  in  this 
sense  and  with  this  explanation  that  Catholics  held 
and  insisted  on  the  Divine  Unity;  01%  as  they 
then  called  it,  the  Monarcliia :  and  thence  they 
went  on  to  the  second  great  doctrine  associated  in 
theology  with  the  Eternal  Father,  and  signified  by 
Thomassin  in  the  above  extract  in  the  words,  ut 
efflaat  flumen  Deitatis  nec  extra  efflaat/^  The  Infinite 
Father  of  an  Infinite  Son  must  necessarily  be  con- 
terminous (so  to  speak)  with  Him.  A  second  self 
(still  to  use  inaccurate  language)  cannot  be  a  second 
God.  The  Monarcliia  of  the  Father  is  not  only  the 
symbol  of  the  Divine  Unity,  but  of  the  Trinity  in  that 
Unity,  for  it  implies  the  presence  of  Those  who^  though 
supreme,  are  not  ap^aL  This  was  especially  its  purpose 
in  the  first  centuries,  when  polytheistic  errors  prevailed. 
The  Son  and  Spirit  were  then  viewed  relatively  to  the 
Father,  and  the  Father  as  the  absolute  God.  Even  now 
statements  remain  in  the  Ritual  of  the  old  usage,  as  in 
the  termination  of  Collects,  and  as  in  the  Sunday  Preface 
in  the  Mass  :  Pater  Omnipotens,  qui  cum  Unigenito 
Filio  tuo  et  Spiritu  Sancto,  Unus  es  Deus  instead  of 
the  Pater,  Filius,  Spiritus  Sanctus,  Unus  Deus  of 
the  Psalmus  Qiiicimque, 

And  so,  The  Word,^^  says  Athan.,  being  the  Son 
of  the  One  God,  is  referred  to  Him  ofwJiom  also  He  is.''^ 
Orat.  iv.  §  1 .  669  avrov  ava^eperai,  vid.  also  Nazianz.  Orat. 
20.  7 ;  Damasc.  F.  O.  i.  8,  p.  140 ;  Theod.  Abuc.  Opusc. 
42,  p.  542.    And  so  avd'yerai,  Naz.  Orat.  42.  15 ;  and 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


Ill 


rjjJba^  avaireiJby^rr]  eirl  rrjv  rod  nrarpo^  avOevTiaVy 
Buseb.  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  20,  p.  84,  though  in  an  heretical 
sense.  (Vid.  a  remarkable  illustration  of  this,  under 
Ignorance  in  Basil  on  Mark  xiii.  32.)  This,  then,  is 
the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Monarchia,  in  opposition 
to  the  Three  Archical  Hypostases  of  Plato  and 
others.  The  Son  and  the  Spirit  were  viewed  as  the 
Fathor^s  possession,  as  one  with  Him  yet  as  really 
distinct  from  Him  as  a  man^s  hands  are  one  and 
not  one  with  himself ;  but  still,  in  spite  of  this, 
as  being  under  the  conditions  of  a  nature  at  once 
spiritual  and  infinite,  therefore,  in  spite  of  this  ana- 
logy, not  inferior,  even  if  subordinate  to  the  Father. 
The  word  parts  belongs  to  bodies,  and  implies 
magnitude;  but  as  the  soul  has  powers  and  properties, 
conscience,  reason,  imagination,  and  the  like,  but  no 
parts,  so  each  Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity  musfc  either 
be  altogether  and  fully  God,  or  not  God  at  all. 

^  By  the  Monarchy  is  meant  the  doctrine  that  the 
Second  and  Third  Persons  in  the  Ever-blessed  Trinity 
are  ever  to  be  referred  in  our  thoughts  to  the  First  as 
the  Fountain  of  Godhead.  It  is  one  of  the  especial 
senses  in  which  God  is  said  to  be  one.  We  are  not 
introducing  three  origins  or  three  Fathers,  as  the 
Marcionites  and  Manichees,  just  as  our  illustration  is 
not  of  three  suns,  but  of  sun  and  its  radiance.^' 
Orat.  iii.  §  15;  vid.  also  iv.  §  1.  Scrap,  i.  28  fin. 
Naz.  Orat.  23.  8.  Bas.  Ilom.  24,  init.  Nyssen.  Orat. 
Cat.  3,  p.  481.  The  Father  is  itnition,  €vct)cn<;,'' 
says  S.  Greg.  Naz.,  from  whom  and  unto  whom 
are  the  other  Two.''    Orat.  42.  15;  also  Orat.  20.  7, 


112 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


and  Epiph.  Haar.  57^  5.  TertuUian^  and  Dionysius  of 
Alexandria  after  him  (Athan.  Deer.  §  26),  uses  the  word 
Monarchia^  which  Praxeas  had  perverted  into  a  kind 
of  Unitarianism  or  Sabellianism,  in  Prax.  3.  Irenaeus 
too  wrote  on  the  Monarchy,  i.e.  against  the  doctrine 
that  God  is  the  author  of  evil.  Eus.  Hist.  v.  20.  And 
before  him  was  Justin^s  work  de  Monarchia/^  where 
the  word  is  used  in  opposition  to  Polytheism.  The 
Marcionites,  whom  Dionysius  also  mentions,  are 
referred  to  by  Athan.  de  Syn.  §  52 ;  vid.  also  Cyril. 
Hier.  Cat.  xvi.  4.  Epiphanius  says  that  their  three 
origins  were  God,  the  Creator^  and  the  evil  spirit, 
Haer.  42,  3^  or  as  Augustine  says,  the  good,  the  just, 
and  the  wicked,  which  may  be  taken  to  mean  nearly 
the  same  thing.  Hser.  22.  The  Apostolical  Canons 
denounce  those  who  baptise  into  Three  TJnoriginate ; 
vid.  also  Athan.  Tom.  ad  Antioch.  5;  Naz.  Orat.  20.  6. 
Basil  denies  rpet?  ap^iKal  v7ro(7Td(T€L<;,  de  Sp.  S.  §  38. 

%  When  characteristic  attributes  and  prerogatives 
are  ascribed  to  God,  or  to  the  Father,  this  is  done  only 
to  the  exclusion  of  creatures,  or  of  false  gods,  not  to 
the  exclusion  of  His  Son  who  is  implied  in  the  mention 
of  Himself.  Thus  when  God  is  called  only  wise,  or 
the  Father  the  only  God,  or  God  is  said  to  be  ingene- 
rate,  ayevijro^,  this  is  not  in  contrast  to  the  Son,  but  to 
all  things  which  are  distinct  from  God.  vid.  Athan. 
Orat.  iii.  8;  Naz.  Orat.  30.  13;  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  142. 

The  words  ^  one  ^  and  ^  only  ^  ascribed  to  God  in 
Scripture,^'  says  S.  Basil,  ^^are  not  used  in  contrast 
to  the  Son  or  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  with  reference  to 
those  who  are  not  God^  and  falsely  called  so.^^    Ep.  8, 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


113 


n.  3.  On  the  other  hand^  when  the  Father  is  men- 
tioned, the  other  Divine  Persons  are  implied  in  Him. 

The  Blessed  and  Holy  Trinity/'  says  S.  Athan.,  is 
indivisible  and  one  with  Itself;  and  when  the  Father 
is  mentioned,  His  Word  is  present  too  [irpoaeaTL),  and 
the  Spirit  in  the  Son ;  and  if  the  Son  is  named,  in  the 
Son  is  the  Father,  and  the  Spirit  is  not  external  to  the 
Word/'  ad  Serap.  i.  14.  I  have  named  the  Father/' 
says  S.  Dionysius,  and  before  I  mention  the  Son^  I 
have  already  signified  Him  in  the  Father;  I  have 
mentioned  the  Son,  and  though  T  had  not  yet  named 
the  Father,  He  had  been  fully  comprehended  in 
the  Son,''  &c.  Sent.  D.  1  7,  vid.  art.  GoinlLerence. 

IT  Passages  like  these  are  distinct  from  that 
in  which  Athan.  says  that  Father  implies  Son," 
Orat.  iii.  §  6,  for  there  the  question  is  of  words, 
but  here  of  fact.  That  the  words  are  correla- 
tive, even  Eusebius  does  not  scruple  to  admit  in 
Sabell.  i.  (ap.  Sirm.  t.  i.  p.  8.)  Pater  statim,  ut 
dictus  fuit  pater,  requirit  ista  vox  filium,"  &c. ;  but 
in  that  passage  no  7repL-)(^cop7]o-L<;  is  implied,  which  is  the 
orthodox  doctrine.  Yet  Petavius  observes  as  to  the 
very  ivord  7repLX(f^prjaL<;  that  one  of  its  first  senses  in 
ecclesiastical  writers  was  this  which  Arians  would  not 
disclaim ;  its  use  to  express  the  Catholic  doctrine  here 
spoken  of  was  later.  Vid.  de  Trin.  iv.  16. 

3.  Thirdly,  from  what  has  been  said,  since  God, 
although  He  is  One  and  Only,  nevertheless  is  Father 
because  He  is  God,  we  are  led  to  understand  that  He 
is  Father  in  a  sense  of  His  own,  not  in  a  mere  human 
sense ;    for  a  Father,    who   was  like  other  fathers, 

VOL.  II.  I 


114 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


would  of  course  impart  to  a  Son  that  which  he  was 
himself,  and  thus  God  would  have  a  Son  who  could  be 
a  father,  and,  as  God,  would  in  His  Son  commence  a 
0€o<yovLa;  this  was  the  objection  of  the  Arians  ;  but  His 
Son  is  His  Image,  not  as  Father,  but  as  God ;  and  to 
be  Father  is  not  the  accident  of  His  Person,  as  in  the 
case  of  men,  but  belongs  necessarily  to  it ;  and  His 
personality  in  the  Godhead  consists,  as  far  as  we  know 
it,  in  His  being  Father  and  in  nothing  else,  and  can  only 
so  be  defined  or  described  ;  and  so  in  a  parallel  way  as 
regards  the  Son.  The  words  Father  and  ^^Son^^ 
have  a  high  archetypical  sense,  and  human  fathers 
and  sons  have  but  the  shadow  of  it. 

%  With  us  a  son  becomes  a  father  because  our 
nature  is  pevarrj,  transitory  and  without  stay,  ever 
shifting  and  passing  on  into  new  forms  and  relations  : 
but  God  is  perfect  and  ever  the  same  ;  what  He  is 
once,  that  He  continues  to  be ;  God  the  Father  remains 
Father,  and  God  the  Son  remains  Son.  Moreover,  men 
become  fathers  by  detachment  and  transmission,  and 
what  is  received  is  handed  on  in  a  succession;  thus  Levi 
before  his  birth  was  in  the  loins  of  Abraham  ;  whereas  it 
is  by  imparting  Himself  wholly  that  the  Father  begets 
the  Son  ;  and  a  perfect  gennesis  finds  its  termination  in 
itself.  The  Son  has  not  a  Son,  because  the  Father  has 
not  a  Father.  Thus  the  Father  is  the  only  true  Father, 
and  the  Son  the  only  true  Son ;  the  Father  only  a  Father, 
the  Son  only  a  Son ;  being  really  in  Their  Persons 
what  human  fathers  are  but  by  function,  circum- 
stance, accident,  and  name.  Aud  since  the  Father 
is  unchangeable  as  Father,  in  nothing  does  the  Son 


THE   FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


115 


more  fulfil  the  idea  of  a  perfect  Image  than  in  being 
unchangeable  too.  Thus  S.  Cyril,  also,  Thesaur.  4, 
pp.  22,  23;  13,  p.  124,  &c. 

Men  differ  from  each  other  as  being  individuals,  but 
the  characteristic  difference  between  Father  and  Son  is, 
not  that  they  are  separate  individuals,  but  that  they  are 
Father  and  Son.  In  these  extreme  statements  it  must 
be  ever  borne  in  mind  that  we  are  contemplating 
divine  things  according  to  oitr  notions,  not  in  re  : 
i.e.  we  are  speaking  of  the  Almighty  Father,  as  such  ; 
there  being  no  real  separation  between  His  Person  and 
His  Substance. 

IT  Thus  Athanasius  :  ^  If  the  Son  is  the  Father^s 
offspring  and  image,  and  is  like  in  all  things  to  the 
Father/  say  the  Arians,  ^  then  it  necessarily  holds  that 
as  He  is  begotten,  so  He  begets,  and  He  too  becomes 
father  of  a  son.  And  again,  he  who  is  begotten  from 
Him,  begets  in  his  turn,  and  so  on  without  limit ;  for 
this  is  to  make  the  Begotten  like  Him  that  begat 
Him.'  Authors  of  blasphemy  !  .  .  if  God  be  as  man,  let 
Him  be  also  a  parent  as  man,  so  that  His  Son  should 
be  father  of  another,  and  so  in  succession  one  from 
another,  till  the  series  they  imagine  grows  into  a  mul- 
titude of  gods.  But  if  God  be  not  as  man,  as  He  is  not, 
we  must  not  impute  to  Him  the  attributes  of  man.  For 
brutes  and  men  after  that  a  Creator  has  begun  their 
line,  are  begotten  by  succession;  and  the  son,  having 
been  begotten  of  a  father  who  was  a  son,  becomes 
accordingly  in  his  turn  a  father  to  a  son,  in  inheriting 
from  his  father  that  by  which  he  himself  has  come  into 
being.    Hence  in  such  instances  there  is  not,  properly 

I  2 


116 


THE   FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


speaking,  either  father  or  son,  nor  do  the  father  and 
the  son  stay  in  their  respective  characters,  for  the  son 
himself  becomes  a  father,  being  son  of  his  father,  and 
father  of  his  son.  But  it  is  not  so  in  the  Godhead  ; 
for  not  as  man  is  God;  for  the  Father  is  not  from 
father ;  therefore  doth  He  not  beget  one  who  shall 
beget ;  nor  is  the  Son  from  efflaence  of  the  Father,  nor 
is  He  begotten  from  a  father  that  was  begotten ;  there- 
fore neither  is  He  begotten  so  as  to  beget.  Thus  it 
belongrs  to  the  Godhead  alone,  that  the  Father  is 
properly  {Kvplco^;)  father,  and  the  Son  properly  son,  and 
in  Them,  and  Them  only,  does  it  hold  that  the  Father 
is  ever  Father  and  the  Son  ever  Son.  Therefore  he 
who  asks  why  the  Son  has  not  a  son,  must  inquire  why 
the  Father  had  not  a  father.  But  both  suppositions 
are  indecent  and  impious  exceedingly.  For  as  the 
Father  is  ever  Father  and  never  could  be  Son,  so  the 
Son  is  ever  Son  and  never  could  be  Father.  For  in 
this  rather  is  He  shown  to  be  the  Father's  Impress  and 
Image,  remaining  what  He  is  and  not  changing,  but 
thus  receiving  from  the  Father  to  be  one  and  the 
same.^^  Orat.  i.  §  21,  22.  Presently  he  says,  *^For 
God  does  not  maJce  men  His  loattern,  but  rather,  because 
God  is  properly  and  alone  truly  Father  of  His  Son,  we 
men  also  are  called  fathers  of  our  own  children,  for 
^  of  Him  is  every  fatherhood  in  heaven  and  on  earth 
named.''  §  23.  The  Semi-Arians  at  Ancyra  quote  the 
same  text  for  the  same  doctrine.  Epiphan.  Hser.  73, 
5.  As  do  Cyril,  in  Joan.  iii.  p.  24 ;  Thesaur.  32, 
p.  281  ;  and  Damascene  de  Fid.  Orth.  i.  8. 

Again  ;     As  men  create  not  as  God  creates,  as  their 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


117 


being  is  nofc  such  as  God^s  being,  so  men^s  generation 
is  in  one  way,  and  the  Son  is  from  the  Father  in 
another.  For  the  offspring  of  men  are  portions  of 
their  fathers,  since  the  very  nature  of  bodies  is  to 
be  dissoluble,  and  composed  of  parts  ;  and  men  lose 
their  substance  in  begetting,  and  again  they  gain 
substance  from  the  accession  of  food.  And  on  this 
account  men  in  their  time  become  fathers  of  many 
children ;  but  Grod,  being  without  parts,  is  Father  of 
the  Son  without  partition  or  passion;  for  of  the  Im- 
material there  is  neither  effluence  nor  accession  from 
without,  as  among  men ;  and  being  uncompounded  in 
nature.  He  is  Father  of  One  Only  Son.  This  is  why  the 
Son  is  Only-begotten,  and  alone  in  the  Father^s  bosom, 
and  alone  is  acknowledged  by  the  Father  to  be  from 
Him,  saying.  This  is  My  beloved  Son,  in  luhom  I  am 
well  pleased.^^  de  Deer.  §  11.  The  parallel,  with  which 
this  passage  begins,  as  existing  between  creation  and 
generation,  is  insisted  on  by  Isidor.  Pel.  Ep.  iii.  355; 
Basil,  contr,  Eun.  iv.  1,  p.  280,  A;  Cyril.  Thesaur.  6, 
p.  48;  Epiph.  Hser.  69,  36 ;  and  Gregor.  Naz.  Orat.  20. 
9,  who  observes  that  God  creates  with  a,  word,  Ps.  148, 
5,  which  evidently  transcends  human  creations.  (Vid. 
also  supr.  1st  part  of  this  art.)  Theodorus  Abucara, 
with  the  same  object,  draws  out  the  parallel  of  life,  ^tt?), 
as  Athan.  that  of  being,  ehac.   Opusc.  iii.  p.  420 — 422. 

The  word  Kvplco^,  used  in  the  first  of  these  passages, 
also  occurs  on  the  same  subject  in  Serap.  i.  §  16. 

The  Father,  being  one  and  only,  is  Father  of  a  Son 
one  and  only;  and  in  the  instance  of  Godhead  only 
have  the  names  Father  and  Son  a  stay  and  a  perpetuity ; 


118 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


for  of  men  if  any  one  be  called  father^  yet  he  has  been 
son  of  another;  and  if  he  be  called  son,  yet  is  he  called 
father  of  another;  so  that  in  the  case  of  men  the 
names  father  and  son  do  not  properly  {Kvplco^)  hold/' 
Vid.  the  whole  passage.  Also  ibid.  iv.  4  fin.  and  6; 
vid.  also  KvpLco^,  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  29.  5 ;  aXrjOa)^;^ 
Orat.  25.  16;  ovrm,  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  i.  5,  p. 
215. 

'O  fjuev  Trarrjp,  irarrjp  ean,  Orat.  iii.  §  11.    And  so, 

In  the  Godhead  only,  6  Trarrjp  /cvpico^  ecrrl  irarrjp, 
KoX  6  VLo^  /cvpLO)^  vi6<;*^^    Serap.  i.  16.    He  speaks  of 

receding  from  things  generate,  casting  away  created 
images,  and  ascending  to  the  Father.'^'    Again  of  men 

not  being  in  nature  and  truth  benefactors,^'  Almighty 
God  being  Himself  the  type  and  pattern,  &c.  Vid. 
Nic.  §  xi. ;  Syn.  §  51;  Orat.  iii.  §  19.  And  so  S. 
Cyril,  TO  KVpico^;  tUtov  eavrov  to  Oelov  eariv,  7)/jieL<; 
Se  Kara  /Jbifjirjo-Lv.  Thesaur.  13,  p.  133,  TraTrjp  Kvptco^;, 
on  fjuTj  Kol  vlo^*  (oarrrep  /cat  f/o?  KVpi(o^,  ort  /jltj  kol 
irarr^p,  Naz.  Orat.  29.  5 ;  vid.  also  23,  6  fin.  25, 
16 ;  vid.  also  the  whole  of  Basil,  adv.  Eun.  ii.  23. 

One  must  not  say,''  he  observes,  that  these  names 
properly  and  primarily,  Kvplw  koX  7rp(OTa)<;,  belong  to 
men,  and  are  given  by  us  but  by  a  figure  Karaxpv^- 
TL/co)^  (vol.  i.  p.  19,  note  2)  to  God.  For  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  referring  us  back  to  the  Origin  of  all  and  True 
Cause  of  beings,  says,  ^  Call  no  one  your  father  upon 
earth,  for  One  is  your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven.' "  He 
adds,  that  if  He  is  properly  and  not  metaphorically  the 
Father  even  of  us,  much  more  is  He  the  Trarrjp  rod  Kara 
(f>v(7iv  vlov,  Vid.  also  Euseb.  contr.  Marc.  i.  4,  p.  22.  Eccl. 


THE  FATHER  ALMIGHTY. 


119 


Theol.  i.  12  fin.;  ii.  6.  Marcellus^  on  the  other  liand, 
contrasting  Son  and  Word,  said  that  our  Lord  was 
KvpLQ)<;  X6yo<^j  not  Kvpico^  vl6<;,  ibid.  ii.  10  fin. 

S.  Basil  says  in  like  manner  that,  though  God  is 
Father  Kvplco^  (properly),  yet  it  comes  to  the  same 
thing  though  we  were  to  say  that  He  is  rpoiTLKm  and  eic 
fieTa(^opa<^,  figuratively.  Father ;  contr.  Eun.  ii.  24 ; 
for  in  that  case  we  must,  as  in  other  metaphors 
used  of  Him  (anger,  sleep,  flying),  take  that  part  of 
the  human  sense  which  can  apply  to  Him.  Now 
r/evvr](Ti<=;  implies  two  things — passion,  and  relationship, 
OLKeiCDai^  (f)va€a)^ ;  accordingly  we  must  take  the  latter 
as  an  indication  of  the  divine  sense  of  the  term.  On 
the  terms  Son,  Word,  &c.,  being  figurative,  or  illustra- 
tive, and  how  to  use  them,  vid.  also  de  Deer.  §  12; 
Orat.  i.  §•  26,  27,  ii.  §  32,  iii.  §  18,  67 ;  Basil,  contr. 
Eunom.  ii.  17;  Hil.  de  Trin.  iv.  2.  Vid  also  Athan.  ad 
Serap.  i.  20,  and  Basil.  Ep.  38,  n.  5,  and  what  is  said 
of  the  office  of  faith  in  each  of  these. 


120 


THE  FLESH. 


THE  FLESH. 

We  know  that  our  Lord  took  our  flesh  and  in  it  by 
His  death  atoned  for  our  sins^  and  by  the  grace  commu- 
nicated to  us  through  that  Fleshy  renews  our  nature ; 
but  the  question  arises  whether  He  took  on  Him  our 
flesh  as  it  was  in  Adam  before  the  fall^  or  as  it  is  now. 
To  this  the  direct  and  broad  answer  is^ — He  assumed  it 
as  it  is  after  the  fall, — though  of  course  some  explana- 
tions have  to  be  made. 

IT  It  was  usual  to  say  against  the  Apollinarians,  that, 
unless  our  Lord  took  on  Him  our  nature,  as  it  is,  He 
had  not  purified  and  changed  it,  as  it  is,  but  another 
nature ;  The  Lord  came  not  to  save  Adam  as  free 
from  sin,  that  unto  him  He  should  become  like ;  but 
as,  in  the  net  of  sin  and  now  fallen,  that  God^s  mercy 
might  raise  him  up  with  Christ.^^  Leont.  contr.  Nestor. 
&c.  ii.  t.  9,  p.  692,  Bibl.  Max.    Accordingly  Athan.  says, 

He  took  a  servant^s  form,  putting  on  that  flesh,  which 
was  enslaved  to  sin.^^  Orat.  i.  §  43.  And,  Had  not 
Sinlessness  appeared  in  the  nature  luhich  had  sinned, 
how  was  sin  condemned  in  the  flesh  ?  in  A  poll.  ii.  G. 
^^It  was  necessary  for  our  salvation, says  S.  Cyril, 
^^that  the  Word  of  God  should  become  man,  that 
human  flesh  subject  to  corruption  and  sick  with  the  lust 
of  pleasures,  He  might  make  His  own ;  and,  ivhereas  He 
is  life  and  life-giving,  He  might  destroy  the  corruption 


THE  FLESH. 


121 


&c  For  by  this  means  might  sin  in  our  flesh 

become  dead/'^  Ep.  ad  Success,  i.  p.  138.  And  S. 
Leo,  ^^Non  alterius  naturae  erab  ejus  caro  quam  nostra_, 
nee  alio  illi  quam  ca3teris  hominibus  anima  est  inspirata 
principio^  quae  excellevet^  non  diversitate  generis,  sed 
sublimitate  virtutis.-'^  Ep.  35  fin.;  vid.  also  Ep.  28, 
3;  Ep.  31,  2;  Ep.  165,  9;  Serra.  22,  2,  and  25,  5. 
If  indeed  sin  were  of  the  substance  of  our  fallen  nature, 
as  some  heretics  have  said,  then  He  could  not  have 
taken  our  nature  without  partaking  our  sinfulness ; 
but  if  sin  be,  as  it  is,  a  fault  of  the  ivill,  then  the 
Divine  Power  of  the  Word  could  sanctify  the  human 
will,  and  keep  it  from  swerving  in  the  direction  of 
evil.  Hence  S.  Austin  says,  We  say  not  that  it  was 
by  i\iQ  f elicit  If  of  a  flesh  separated  from  sense  that  Christ 
could  not  feel  the  desire  of  sin,  but  that  by  perfection  of 
virtue,  and  by  a  flesh  not  begotten  through  concu- 
piscence of  the  flesh.  He  had  not  the  desire  of  sin.''^ 
Op.  Imperf.  iv.  48.  On  the  other  hand,  S.  Athanasius 
expressly  calls  it  Manichean  doctrine  to  consider  rr^v 
(f)vo-LV  of  the  flesh  a/jbaprLav,  koI  ov  rrjv  irpa^tv,  contr. 
Apoll.  i.  12  fin.,  or  cj^vcrLfcrjv  elvau  ti^v  a/jLaprlav,  ibid.  i. 
14  fin.  His  argument  in  Apoll.  i.  15  is  on  the  ground 
that  all  natures  are  from  God,  but  God  made  man 
upright  nor  can  be  the  author  of  evil  (vid.  also  Vit. 
Anton.  20)  ;  not  as  if,^^  he  says,  the  devil  wrought  in 
man  a  nature,  (God  forbid!)  for  of  a  nature  the  devil 
cannot  be  maker  {Srjfjbcovpyo^),  as  is  the  impiety  of  the 
Manichees,  but  he  wrought  a  bias  of  nature  by  trans- 
gression, and  '  so  death  reigned  over  all  men.' 
Wherefore,   saith   Ho,    ^  the  Son  of  God  camo  to 


122 


THE  FLESH. 


destroy  the  works  of  the  devil ;  '  what  works  ?  that 
nature^  which  God  made  sinless^  and  the  devil  biassed 
to  the  transgression  of  God's  command  and  the  assault 
of  sin  which  is  deaths  that  nature  did  God  the  Word  raise 
again,  so  as  to  be  secure  from  the  devil^s  bias  and  the 
assault  of  sin.  And  therefore  the  Lord  said,  ^  The 
prince  of  this  world  cometh  and  findeth  nothing  in 
Me.^  vid.  also  §  19.  Ibid.  ii.  6,  he  speaks  of  the 
devil  having  introduced  ^^the  law  of  sin.''^  vid.  also  §  9. 

H  As,  since  the  flesh  has  become  the  all-quickening 
Word's,  it  overbears  the  might  of  corruption  and 
death,  so,  I  think  since  the  soul  became  His  who 
knew  not  error,  it  has  an  unchangeable  condition  for 
all  good  things  established  in  it,  and  far  more  vigorous 
than  the  sin  that  of  old  time  tyrannised  over  us.  For, 
first  and  only  of  men  on  the  earth,  Christ  did  not  sin, 
nor  was  guile  found  in  His  mouth ;  and  He  is  laid 
down  as  a  root  and  firstfruit  of  those  who  are  re- 
fashioned unto  newness  of  life  in  the  Spirit,  and  unto 
immortality  of  body,  and  He  will  transmit  to  the  whole 
human  race  the  firm  security  of  the  Godhead,  as  by 
participation  and  by  grace.'''  Cyril,  de  Rect.  Fid. 
p.  18.    Vid.  art.  Specialties. 


USE  OF  FORCE  IN  RELIGION. 


123 


USE  OP  FORCE  IN  RELIGION. 

^^In  no  long  time/'  says  Atlian._,  ihej  will  turn  to 
outrage ;  and  next  they  will  threaten  us  with  the  band 
and  the  captain/^  Vid.  John  xviii.  12.  Elsewhere  he 
speaks  of  tribune  and  governor^  with  an  allusion  per- 
haps to  Acts  xxiii.  22,  2ij  &c.  Hist.  Arian.  §  66  fin. 
and  67 ;  vid.  also  §  2.  How  venture  they  to  call  that  a 
Council^  in  which  a  Count  presided/^  &c.  Apol.  c.  Ar. 
8 ;  vid.  also  10,  45  ;  Ep.  Enc.  5.  And  so  also  doctrinally, 

Our  Saviour  is  so  gentle  that  He  teaches  thus,  If 
any  man  wills  to  come  after  Me,  and  Whoso  ivills  to  be 
My  disciple ;  and  coming  to  each,  He  does  not  force 
them,  but  knocks  at  the  door  and  says,  Open  unto  Me, 
My  sister,  My  spouse  ;  and,  if  they  open  to  Him,  He 
enters  in,  but  if  they  delay  and  will  not.  He  departs 
from  them.  For  tlie  Truth  is  not  preached  with  swords 
or  with  darts,  nor  by  means  of  soldiers,  but  by  per- 
suasion and  counsel."''  Ar.  Hist.  §  33  ;  vid.  also  67,  and 
Hilar,  ad  Const,  i.  2.  On  the  other  hand  he  observes 
of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  It  was  not  necessity  which 
drove  the  judges  ''  to  their  decision,  *^  but  all  vindi- 
cated  the  truth  of  deliberate  purpose.^'    Ep.  J^g.  13. 

As  to  the  view  taken  in  early  times  of  the  use  of 
force  in  religion,  it  seems  to  have  been  that  that  was 
a  bad  cause  which  depended  upon  it ;  but  that,  when 
a  cause  was  good,  there  was  nothing  wrong  in  using 


124 


USE  OF  FORCE  IN  RELIGION. 


secular  means  in  due  subordination  to  argument ;  that 
it  was  as  lawful  to  urge  religion  by  such  means  on  in- 
dividuals who  were  incapable  of  higher  motives^  as  by- 
inducements  of  temporal  advantage.  Our  Lord^s  king- 
dom was  not  of  this  world,  in  that  it  did  not  depend 
on  this  world ;  but  means  of  this  world  were  some- 
times called  for  in  order  to  lead  the  mind  to  an  act  of 
faith  in  that  which  was  not  of  this  world.  The  simple 
question  was,  whether  a  cause  depended  on  force  for 
its  success.  S.  Athanasius  declared,  and  the  event 
proved,  that  Arianism  was  thus  dependent.  When 
Emperors  ceased  to  persecute,  Arianism  ceased  to  be  ; 
it  had  no  life  in  itself.  Again,  active  heretics  were 
rightly  prevented  by  secular  means  from  spreading  the 
poison  of  their  heresy.  But  all  exercise  of  temporal 
pressure,  long  continued  or  on  a  large  scale,  was  wrong, 
as  arguing  an  absence  of  moral  and  rational  grounds  in 
its  justification.  Again,  the  use  of  secular  weapons  in 
ecclesiastical  hands  was  a  scandal,  as  negotiatio  would  be. 
And  further  there  is  an  abhorrence  of  cruelty,  just  and 
natural  to  us,  which  may  easily  be  elicited,  unless  the  use 
of  the  secular  arm  is  directed  with  much  discretion  and 
charity.  For  a  list  of  passages  from  the  Fathers  on  the 
subject,  vid.  Limborch  on  the  Inquisition,  vol.  i.  and  ii. 
2  and  5  ;  Bellarmin.  de  Laicis,  c.  21,  22.  For  authors 
who  defend  its  adoption,  vid.  Gerhard  de  Magistr.  Polit. 
p.  741.  So  much  as  to  the  question  of  principle,  which 
even  Protestants  act  on  and  have  generally  acted ;  in 
this  day  and  here.  State  interference  would  so  simply 
tell  against  the  Catholic  cause,  that  it  would  be  a 
marvel  to  find  any  Catholic  advocating  it. 


USE  OF  FORCE  IN  RELIGION. 


125 


In  that  day  it  was  a  thought  which  readily  arose  in 
the  minds  of  zealous  men.    Thus  : 

%  Who  comprehends  not  the  craft  of  these  God- 
assailants  ?  who  but  would  stone  such  madmen  ?  ovk 
Gv  KaraXiOcioo-eLevJ^  Deer.  §  28. 

If  then  they  thus  conceive  of  the  Son^  let  all  men 
throw  stones  at  them^  considering^  as  they  do^  the  Word 
a  part  of  this  universe^  and  a  part  insufficient  without 
the  rest  for  the  service  committed  to  Him.  But 
if  this  be  manifestly  impious^  let  them  acknowledge 
that  the  Word  is  not  in  the  number  of  things  made, 
but  the  sole  and  proper  Word  of  the  Father,  and  their 
Framer.  His  words  are  l3aWea6coaav  nrapa  TrdvToyv/^ 
Orat.  ii.  §  28.    Vid.  also  i.  38,  and  iii.  41. 

^  There  is  an  apparent  allusion  in  such  passages  to 
the  punishment  of  blasphemy  and  idolatry  under  the 
Jewish  Law.  Yid.  art.  Definition,  supra,  Ex.  xxi.  17. 
Thus,  for  instance,  Nazianzen  :  ^'  While  I  go  up  the 
mount  with  good  heart,  .  .  that  I  may  become  within 
the  cloud,  and  may  hold  converse  with  God,  (for  so  God 
bids,)  if  there  be  any  Aaron,  let  him  go  up  with  me 
and  stand  near,  .  ,  And  if  there  be  any  Nadab  or  Abiud, 
or  any  of  the  elders,  let  him  go  up,  but  stand  far  off, 
according  to  the  measure  of  his  purification.  .  .  .  But 
if  any  one  is  an  evil  and  savage  beast,  and  quite  inca- 
pable of  science  and  theology  .  .  let  him  stand  off  still 
further,  and  depart  from  the  mount;  or  lie  will  he 
stoned  and  crushed ;  for  the  wicked  shall  be  miserably 
destroyed.  For  as  stones  for  tlie  bestial  are  true  ivords 
and  strong.  Whether  he  be  leopard,  let  him  die,  spots 
and  all,^^  &c.    Orat.  28.  2.    The  stoning  then  was 


126 


USE  OF  FORCE  IN  RELIGION. 


metaphorical ;  the  stones  were  strong  words.  In  the 
same  way  S.  Dionysius  speaks  of  the  charges  of  hetero- 
doxy brought  against  him  before  the  Eoman  See. 
^^By  two  words  taken  out  of  their  context,  as  with 
stones,  they  sling  at  me  from  a  distance.^^  Athan.  de 
Sent.  D.  §  18. 

^  Are  they  not  deserving  of  many  deaths  ?  Orat. 
ii.  §  4.  You  ought  [coc^eCKe^^)  to  have  your  impious 
tongue  cut  out/^  the  Arian  Acacius  says  to  Marcellus, 
ap.  Epiph.  Haer.  72,  7.  ^^If  Eutyches  thinks  otherwise 
than  the  decrees  of  the  Church,  he  deserves  {d^io<^)  not 
only  punishment,  but  the  fire,^^  says  the  Monophysite. 
Dioscorus  ap.  Concil.  Chalced.  (Hard.  t.  2,  p.  100.) 
In  time  they  advanced  from  accounting  to  doing.  The 
Emperor  Justin  proposes  to  cut  out  the  heretic  Severus's 
tongue,  Evagr.  iv.  4;  and  blasphemiis  lapidasti,^^ 
Theodor.  ap.  Concil.  6.  (Labbe,  t.  6,  p.  88.)  After- 
wards we  find  an  advance  from  allegory  to  fact. 
Sometimes  it  was  a  literalism  deduced  from  the  doctrine 
in  dispute ;  as  the  heretics  at  the  Latrocinium  cried. 

Cut  in  two  those  who  assert  two  Natures. Concil. 
Hard.  t.  2,  p.  81.  Palladius  relates  a  case  in  which  a 
sort  of  ordeal  became  a  punishment :  Abbot  Copres 
proposed  to  a  Manichee  to  enter  a  fire  with  him.  After 
Copres  had  come  out  unharmed,  the  populace  forced 
the  Manichee  into  it,  and  then  cast  him,  burnt  as  he 
was,  out  of  the  city.  Hist.  Lausiac.  54.  S.  Gregory 
mentions  the  case  of  a  wizard,  who  had  pretended  to 
be  a  monk,  and  had  used  magical  arts  against  a  nun, 
being  subsequently  burned  by  the  Roman  populace. 
Dial.  i.  4. 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


127 


FREEDOM  OP  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 

Thip^  it  need  hardly  be  said,  is  one  of  the  chief 
blessings  which  we  have  secured  to  us  by  the  Incarna- 
tion. We  are  by  nature  the  captives  and  prisoners  of 
our  inordinate  and  unruly  passions  and  desires  ;  we  are 
not  our  own  masters^  till  our  Lord  sets  us  free ;  and 
the  main  question  is,  how  does  He  set  us  free,  and  by 
what  instrumentality  ? 

1.  Here  we  answer,  firsts  by  bringing  home  to  us  the 
broad  and  living  law  of  liberty  and  His  own  pattern 
which  He  has  provided  for  us.  Whereas/^  Athan. 
says,  ^^of  things  made  the  nature  is  alterable,  .  .  there- 
fore there  was  here  need  of  One  who  was  unalterable, 
that  men  might  have  the  immutability  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  Word  as  an  image  and  type  for  virtue.^^ 
Orat.  i.  §  51.  {Vise.  n.  84) 

T[  Vid.  Athan.  de  Incarn.  §  13,  14  ;  vid.  also  Gent. 
41  fin.  Cum  justitia  nulla  esset  in  terra,  docto- 
rem  misit,  quasi  vivara  legem.^^  Lactant.  Instit.  iv. 
25.  The  Only-begotten  was  made  man  like  us,  .  .  . 
as  if  lending  us  His  own  steadfastness.^^  Cyril,  in 
Joann.  lib.  v.  2,  p.  473;  vid.  also  Thesaur.  20,  p.  108; 
August,  de  Corr.  et  Grat.  10 — 12;  Damasc.  F.  0.  iv. 
4.  And  this  pattern  to  us  He  is,  not  only  through 
His  Incarnation,  but  as  manifested  in  a  measure  by 
His  glory,  as  irpwroroKo^,  in  the   visible  universe. 


128 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


Vid.  a  beautiful  passage^  contr.  Gent.  42,  &c.  Again^ 
He  made  them  [men]  after  His  own  image^  impart- 
ing to  tliem  of  the  power  of  His  own  Word^  that, 
having  as  it  were  certain  shadows  of  the  Word,  and 
becoming  rational,  \oyL/col,  they  might  be  enabled  to 
continue  in  blessedness.-'^  Incarn.  3 ;  vid.  also  Orat. 
ii.  §  78,  {Disc.  n.  215,)  where  he  speaks  of  Wisdom  as 
being  infused  into  the  world  on  its  creation,  that  the 
world  might  possess  ^^an  impress  and  semblance  of 
Its  Image.^^ 

So  again,  He  is  the  truth,  and  we  by  imitation 
become  virtuous  and  sons;  ,  .  that,  as  He,  being  the 
Word,  is  in  His  own  Father,  so  we  too,  taking  Him  as 
an  exemplar,  might  live  in  unanimity,^^  &c.  &c.  Kara 
/jblfjirjo-iv.  Orat.  iii.  §  19.  {Disc,  n.  252  ;  )  Clem.  Alex. 
Tcop  eiKovcov  Ta9  fiev  eKrpeTrojuievov^y  ra?  8e  /ijLifjLov/jievov<;. 
Paedag.  i.  3,  p.  102,  ed.  Pott,  and  fiifiTjaei  rov  voo^ 
etceivov,  Naz.  Ep.  102,  p.  95  (ed.  Ben.).  Vid.  Leo 
in  various  places,  infra,  p.  190,  art.  Incarnation;  ut 
imitatores  operum,  factores  sermonum,  &c.  Iren.  H^r. 
V.  1  ;  exemplum  verum  et  adjutorium.  August. 
Serm.  101,  6 ;  mediator  non  solum  per  adjutorium, 
verum  etiam  per  exemplum.  August.  Trin.  xiii.  22, 
also  ix.  21,  and  Eusebius,  though  with  an  heretical 
meaning,  Kara  rrjv  avrov  /jbL/jirjcnv.  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  19. 

2.  But  of  course  an  opportunity  of  imitation  is  not 
enough  :  a  powerful  internal  grace  is  necessary,  how- 
ever great  the  beauty  of  the  Moral  Law  and  its  Author, 
in  order  to  set  free  and  convert  the  human  heart. 
^^Idly  do  ye  imagine  to  be  able  to  work  in  yourselves 
newness  of  the  principle  which  thinks  {(f>popovPTo<^)  and 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


129 


actuates  the  flesh,  expecting  to  do  so  by  imitation  .  .  , 
for  if  men  could  have  wrought  for  themselves  newness 
of  that  actuating  principle  without  Christ,  and  if  what 
is  actuated  follows  what  actuates,  what  need  was  there 
of  Christ^s  coming  ?      Apoll.  i.  §  20  fin.    And  again  : 

The  Word  of  God/^  he  says,  underwent  a  sort  of 
creation  in  the  Incarnation,  in  order  to  effect  thereby 
our  new  creation.  If  He  was  not  thus  created  for  us," 
but  was  absolutely  a  creature,  which  is  the  Arian 
doctrine,  it  follows  that  we  are  not  created  in  Him ; 
and  if  not  created  in  Him,  we  have  Him  not  in  our- 
selves, but  externally,  as,  for  instance,  receiving  in- 
struction from  Him  as  from  a  teacher.  And,  it  being 
so  with  us,  sin  has  not  lost^its  reign  over  the  flesh, 
being  inherent  and  not  cast  out  of  it."  Orat.  ii.  §  56. 
{Disc,  n.  180.)  And  this  is  necessary,  he  goes  on  to 
say,     that  we  might  have  ekevOepov  to  ^povrjijia,'^ 

IT  He  speaks,  contr.  Gent.,  of  man  having  the 
grace  of  the  Giver,  and  his  own  virtue  from  the 
Fathei'^s  Word ;  of  the  mind  seeing  the  Word, 
and  in  Him  the  Word^s  Father  also,"  §  2  ;  of  the  way 
to  God  being,  not  as  God  Himself,  above  us  and  far 
off,  or  external  to  us,  but  in  us,"  30,  &c.  &c. ;  vid.  also 
Basil,  de  Sp.  S.  n.  19.  This  is  far  more  than  mere 
teaching.  Rational  creatures  receiving  light,"  says 
Cyril,  enlighten  by  imparting  principles,  which  are 
poured  from  their  own  minds  into  another  intellect ; 
and  such  an  illumination  may  be  justly  called  teaching 
rather  than  revelation.  But  the  Word  of  God  en- 
lighteneth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,  not 
in  the  way  of  a  teacher,  as  for  instance  Angels  do  or 

VOL.  II.  K 


130  FREEDOM  or  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 

men,  but  rather  as  God,  in  the  way  of  a  Framer,  doth 
He  sow  in  each  whom  He  calls  into  being  the  seed  of 
Wisdom,  that  is,  of  divine  knowledge,  and  implant  a 
root  of  understanding/^  &c.  Cyril,  in  Joan.  xix.  p.  75. 
Athan.  speaks  of  this  seed  sometimes  as  natural,  some- 
times as  supernatural,  and  indeed  the  one  order  of 
grace  is  parallel  to  the  other,  and  not  incompatible 
with  it.  Again,  he  speaks  of  a  reason  combined  and 
connatural  with  everything  that  came  into  being, 
which  some  are  wont  to  call  seminal,  inanimate  indeed 
and  unreasoning  and  unintelligent,  but  operating  only 
by  external  art  according  to  the  science  of  Him  who 
sowed  it.^^  contr.  Gent.  40.  Thus  there  are  three 
supernatural  aids  given  to  men  of  which  the  Word  is 
the  ap'x/j,  that  of  instinct,  of  reason,  and  the  gratia 
Christi.^^ 

3.  Even  this  is  not  all  which  is  given  us  over  and 
above  nature.  The  greatest  and  special  gift  is  the 
actual  presence,  as  well  as  the  power  within  us  of  the 
Incarnate  Son  as  a  principle  or  ap^v  (vid.  art.  ap'xrj) 
of  sanctification,  or  rather  of  deification,  (vid  art.  Deif,) 
On  this  point  Athan.  especially  dwells  in  too  many 
passages  to  quote  or  name. 

E.g.  The  Word  of  God  was  made  man  in  order 
to  sanctify  the  flesh.^^  Orat.  ii.  §  10.  {Disc.  n.  114 
fin.)  Ye  say,  ^He  destroyed  [the  works  of  the  devil] 
by  not  sinning;''  but  this  is  no  destruction  of  sin. 
For  not  in  Him  did  the  devil  in  the  beginning  work 
sin,  that  by  His  coming  into  the  world  and  not 
sinning  sin  was  destroyed ;  but  whereas  the  devil  had 
wrought  sin  by  an  after-sowing  in  the  rational  and 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


131 


spiritual  nature  of  man,  therefore  it  became  impossible 
for  nature,  which  was  rational  and  had  voluntarily- 
sinned,  and  fell  under  the  penalty  of  death,  to  recover 
itself  into  freedom  {iXevOepcav),  .  .  .  Therefore  came 
the  Son  of  God  by  Himself  to  establish  [the  flesh]  in 
His  own  nature  from  a  new  beginning  {ap^v)  a 
marvellous  generation/^  Apoll.  ii.  §  6. 

%  True,  without  His  incarnation  at  all,  God  was  able 
to  speak  the  Word  only  and  undo  the  curse  ...  but  then 
the  power  indeed  of  Him  who  gave  command  had  been 
shown,  but  man  would  have  fared  but  as  Adam  before  the 
fall  by  receiving  grace  only  from  without,  not  having  it 
united  to  the  body.  .  .  Then,  had  he  been  again  seduced 
by  the  serpent,  a  second  need  had  arisen  of  God^s 
commanding  and  undoing  the  curse  ;  and  thus  the  need 
had  been  interminable,  and  men  had  remained  under 
guilt  just  as  before,  being  in  slavery  to  sin,'^  &c. 
Orat.  ii.  §  68.  [Disc.  n.  200)  ;  via.  arts.  Incarnation 
and  Sanctijication,  And  so  in  Incarn.  §  7,  he  says 
that  repentance  might  have  been  pertinent,  had  man 
merely  offended,  without  corruption  following ;  but 
that  that  corruption  involved  the  necessity  of  the 
Word^s  vicarious  sufferings  and  intercessory  office. 

^  ^^If  the  works  of  the  Word^s  Godhead  had  not 
taken  place  through  the  body,  man  had  not  been  made 
god ;  and  again,  had  not  the  belongings  of  the  flesh 
been  ascribed  to  the  Word,  man  had  not  been 
thoroughly  delivered  from  them ;  but  though  they  had 
ceased  for  a  little  while,  as  I  said  before,  still  sin  had 
remained  in  man  and  corruption,  as  was  the  case  with 
mankind  before  He  came  ;    and  for  this  reason  : — 

K  2 


132 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


Many,  for  instance^  have  been  made  holy  and  clean 
from  all  sin ;  nay,  Jeremias  was  hallowed,  even  from 
the  womb,  and  John,  while  yet  in  the  womb,  leapt  for 
joy  at  the  voice  of  Mary  Mother  of  God ;  nevertheless 
death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  over  those  that 
had  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  Adam's  transgres- 
sion j  and  thus  men  remained  mortal  and  corruptible 
as  before,  liable  to  the  affections  proper  to  their  nature. 
But  now  the  Word  having  become  man  and  having 
appropriated  the  affections  of  the  flesh,  no  longer  do 
these  affections  touch  the  body,  because  of  the  Word 
who  has  come  in  it,  but  they  are  destroyed  by  Him, 
and  henceforth  men  no  longer  remain  sinners  and  dead 
according  to  their  proper  affections,  but,  having  risen 
according  to  the  Word^s  power^  they  abide  ever  im- 
mortal and  incorruptible.  Whence  also,  whereas  the 
flesh  is  born  of  Mary  Mother  of  God,  He  Himself  is. 
said  to  have  been  born,  who  furnishes  to  others  a 
generation  of  being  ;  in  order  that,  by  His  transferring 
our  generation  into  Himself,  we  may  no  longer,  as 
mere  earth,  return  to  earth,  but  as  being  knit  into  the 
Word  from  heaven,  may  be  carried  to  heaven  by  Him.^^ 
Orat.  iii.  33.    (Disc.  n.  270.) 

^  We  could  not  otherwise,^^  says  S.  Irenasus, 
receive  incorruption  and  immortality,  but  by  being 
united  to  incorruption  and  immortality.  But  how 
could  this  be,  unless  incorruption  and  immortality  had 
first  been  made  what  we  are  ?  that  corruption  might 
be  absorbed  by  incorruption  and  mortal  by  immortality, 
that  we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  Sons.^^  Haer. 
iii.  19,  n.  1.       He  took  part  of  flesh  and  blood,  that 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


133 


is,  He  became  man,  wliereas  He  was  Life  by  nature, 
.  *  .  that  uniting  Himself  to  tlie  corruptible  flesh 
according  to  the  measure  of  its  own  nature,  ineflFably, 
and  inexpressibly,  and  as  He  alone  knows.  He  might 
bring  it  to  His  own  life,  and  render  it  partaker  through 
Himself  of  God  and  the  Father.  .  .  .  For  He  bore  our 
nature,  re-fashioning  it  into  His  own  life ;  .  .  .  He  is 
in  us  through  the  Spirit,  turning  our  natural  corrup- 
tion into  incorruption,  and  changing  death  to  its 
contrary.^^  Cyril,  in  Joan.  lib.  ix.  cir.  fin.  pp.  883,  4. 
This  is  the  doctrine  of  S.  Athanasius  and  S.  Cyril, 
one  may  say,  passhn. 

^  Vid.  Naz.  Epp.  ad  Cled.  1  and  2  (101,  102,  ed. 
Ben.);  Nyssen.  ad  Theoph.  in  ApoU.  p.  696.  "  Generatio 
Christi  origo  est  populi  Christiani,^^  says  S.  Leo ;  for 
whoso  is  regenerated  in  Christ,''  he  continues,  ^^has 
no  longer  the  propagation  from  a  carnal  father,  but  the 
germination  of  a  Saviour,  who  therefore  was  made  Son 
of  man,  that  we  might  be  sons  of  God.^^  Serm.  26, 
2.  Multum  fuit  a  Christo  recepisse  formam,  sed  plus 
est  in  Christo  habere  substantiam.  Suscepit  nos  in 
suam  proprietatem  ilia  natura,^^  &c.  &c.  Serm.  72,  2 ; 
vid.  Serm.  22,  2  ;  ut  corpus  regenerati  fiat  caro  Cruci- 
fixi.^^  Serm.  63,  6.  ^^Haec  est  nativitas  nova  dum  homo 
nascitur  in  Deo ;  in  quo  homiue  Deus  natus  est,  carne 
antiqui  seminis  suscepta,  sine  semine  antique,  ut  illam 
novo  semine,  id  est,  spiritualiter,  reformaret,  exclusis 
antiquitatis  sordibus,  expiatam.^^  Tertull.  de  Carn. 
Christ.  17;  vid.  Orat  iii.  §  34. 

IT  Such  is  the  channel  and  mode  in  which  spiritual 
life  and  freedom  is  given  to  us.    Our  Lord  Himself, 


134 


TREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


according  to  the  Holy  Fathers^  is  ihe  ap')(r}  of  the  new 
creation  to  each  individual  Christian.  If  it  be  asked 
of  them.  What  real  connection  can  there  possibly  be 
between  the  sanctification  of  Christ^s  manhood  and 
ours  ?  how  does  it  prove  that  human  nature  is  sancti- 
fied because  a  particular  specimen  of  it  was  sanctified 
in  Him  ?  S.  Chrysostom  explains  :  He  is  born  of  our 
substance ;  you  will  say,  ^  This  does  not  pertain  to 
all ;  ^  yea,  to  all.  He  mingles  {avafjulyvvo-Lv)  Himself 
with  the  faithful  individually,  through  the  mysteries, 
and  whom  He  has  begotten  those  He  nurses  from 
Himself,  not  puts  them  out  to  other  hands,^^  &c.  Hom. 
82.  5.  in  Matt.  And  just  before,  ^^It  sufficed  not  for 
Him  to  be  made  man,  to  be  scourged,  to  be  sacrificed  ; 
but  He  unites  Himself  to  us  {dva<pvpet  kavrov  rjiuv), 
not  merely  by  faith,  but  really,  has  He  made  us  His 
body."  Again,  That  we  are  commingled  [avafcepaor- 
6oofjL€v)  into  that  flesh,  not  merely  through  love,  bub 
really,  is  brought  about  by  means  of  that  food  which 
He  he  has  bestowed  upon  us."  Hom.  46.  3.  in  Joann. 
And  so  S.  Cyril  writes  against  Nestorius  :  Since  we 
have  proved  that  Christ  is  the  Vine,  and  we  branches 
as  adhering  to  a  communion  with  Him,  not  spiritual 
merely  but  bodily,  why  clamours  he  against  us  thus 
bootlessly,  saying  that,  since  we  adhere  to  Him,  not 
in  a  bodily  way,  but  rather  by  faith  and  the  afi*ection 
of  love  according  to  the  Law,  therefore  He  has  called, 
not  His  own  flesh  the  vine,  but  rather  the  Godhead  ?  " 
in  Joann.  10,  p.  863,  4.  And  Nyssen  :  As  they  who 
have  taken  poison,  destroy  its  deadly  power  by  some 
other  preparation  ...  so  when  we  have  tasted  what 


FREEDOM  OF  OUR  MORAL  NATURE. 


135 


destroys  our  nature^  we  have  need  of  that  instead 
which  restores  what  was  destroyed.  .  .  .  But  what  is 
this?  nothing  else  than  that  Body  which  has  been 
proved  to  be  mightier  than  death^  and  was  the  be- 
ginning, Karrjp^aTo,  of  our  life.  For  a  little  leaven,^^ 
&c.  Orat.  Catech.  37.  ^^Decocta  quasi  per  ollam  carnis 
nostra3  cruditate,  sanctificavit  in  asternum  nobis  cibum 
carnem  suam.''^  Paulin.  Ep.  23.  7.  Of  course  in  such 
statements  nothing  simply  material  is  implied.  But 
without  some  explanation  really  literal,  language  such 
as  S.  Athanasius^s  in  the  text  seems  a  mere  matter  of 
words.    Vid.  infr.  p.  225. 


136 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 

It  is  a  doctrine  mucli  insisted  on  by  S.  Athanasius^ 
that^  together  with  the  act  of  creation,  there  was,  on 
the  part  of  the  Creator,  a  further  act  conservative  of 
the  universe  which  He  was  creating.  This  was  the 
communication  to  it  of  a  blessing  or  grace,  analogous 
to  the  grace  and  sonship  purchased  for  us  by  our  Lord^s 
incarnation,  though  distinct  in  kind  from  it  and  far 
inferior  to  it;  and  in  consequence  the  universe  is  not 
only  j€V7]Tov  but  yevvTjrov,  not  only  made,  but  in  a 
certain  sense  begotten  or  generated,  and,  being 
moulded  on  the  Pattern  supplied  by  the  Divine  Nature, 
is  in  a  true  sense  an  Image  or  at  least  a  Semblance  of 
the  Creator.    (Vid.  art.  yevvrjrov.) 

In  controversy  with  the  Arians,  he  explains  with 
great  care  the  nature  of  this  gift,  because  it  was  their 
device  to  reduce  our  Lord^s  Sonship,  in  which  lay  the 
proof  of  His  Divinity,  to  the  level  of  the  supernatural 
adoption  which  has  been  accorded  by  the  Creator  to  the 
whole  world,  first  on  its  creation,  and  again  through 
the  redemption  upon  the  cross  of  the  fallen  race  of 
man. 

This  grace  of  adoption  was  imparted  in  both  cases 
by  the  ministration  of  the  Eternal  Son,  in  capacity 
of  Primogenitus  or  First-born,  (as  through  His 
Incarnation  in  the  Gospel  Economy,  so  through 
His  av<yKaTd/3aaL<;j  or  the  coming  of  His  Personal 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 


137 


Presence  into  the  world  in  tlie  beginning,)  and  was 
His  type  and  likeness  stamped  upon  the  worlds  physical 
and  moral,  and  a  fulness  of  excellence  enriching  it 
from  the  source  of  all  excellence.    (Vid.  irpcoToroKo^;.) 

Since  God  is  self-existing  and  not  composed  of  parts/^ 
says  Athan.,  such  too  is  His  Word  also^  being  One 
Only-begotten  God,  who  from  a  Father,  as  a  Fount  of 
Good,  has  gone  forth  {irpoeXOcov)  Himself  Good^  and 
put  into  order  and  into  consistency  all  things.  The 
reason  for  this  is  truly  admirable,  and  evidently  befit- 
ting. For  the  nature  of  creatures,  as  coming  into  subsis- 
tence out  of  nothing,  is  dissoluble,  and  feeble,  and,  taken 
by  itself,  is  mortal,  but  the  God  of  the  universe  is  good 
and  of  surpassingbeauty  in  His  nature,  (vid.  pei/crro?)  .  . 
Beholding  then  that  all  created  nature  was  in  respect 
of  its  own  laws  dissoluble  and  dissolving,  lest  this 
should  happen  to  it,  and  the  whole  world  fall  back 
again  into  nothing,  having  made  all  things  by  His  own 
Eternal  Word,  and  having  given  substance  to  the 
creation.  He  refused  to  let  it  be  carried  away  and 
wrecked  ["^eLixd^eaOai)  by  stress  of  its  own  nature,  and, 
as  a  Good  God,  He  governs  and  sustains  it  all  by  His 
own  Word,  who  is  Himself  God,  .  .  .  through  whom 
and  in  whom  all  things  consist,  visible  and  invisible, 
&c.  contr.  Gent.  §  41. 

Again,  ^^In  order  that  what  came  into  being  might  not 
only  be,  but  be  good,  it  pleased  God  that  His  own  Wis- 
dom should  condescend  {avy/cara^rjvai)  to  the  creatures, 
so  as  to  introduce  an  impress  and  semblance  of  Its  Image 
on  all  in  common  and  on  each,  that  what  was  made  might 
be  manifestly  wise  works  and  worthy  of  God.    For  as 


138 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 


of  the  Son  of  God,  considered  as  tlie  Word,  our  word 
is  an  image,  so  of  the  same  Son  considered  as  Wisdom 
is  the  wisdom  which  is  implanted  in  us  an  image  ;  in 
which  wisdom  we,  having  the  power  of  knowledge  and 
thought,  become  recipients  of  the  All-framing  Wisdom, 
and  through  It  we  are  able  to  know  Its  Father/^ 
Orat.  ii.  78.  {Disc.  n.  215.) 

%  S.  Cyril,  using  another  figure,  says  that  the  uni- 
verse is  grafted  on  the  Word :  He  is  Only-begotten 
according  to  nature,  as  being  alone  from  the  Father, 
God  from  God,  Light  kindled  from  Light;  and  He  is 
First-born  for  our  sakes,  that,  as  if  on  some  immortal 
root,  the  whole  creation  might  be  ingrafted  and  might 
bud  forth  from  the  Everlasting.  For  all  things  were 
made  by  Him,  and  consist  for  ever  and  are  preserved  in 
Him.''    Thesaur.  25,  p.  238. 

Moreover,  Athan.  goes  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  the. 
universe  does  not  evidence  the  Creator,  except  as  being 
inhabited  by  the  Son,  and  that  what  we  see  divine  in 
it  is  His  Presence.  ^^He  has  said,  ^The  invisible 
things  of  Him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made.  His  eternal  Power  and  Divinity.^  .  .  .  Study  the 
context,  and  ye  will  see  that  it  is  the  Son  who  is 
signified.  For  after  making  mention  of  the  creation, 
he  naturally  speaks  of  the  Framer's  Power  as  seen  in 
it,  which  Power,  I  say,  is  the  Word  of  God,  by  whom 
all  things  were  made.  If  indeed  the  creation  be  suffi- 
cient of  itself  alone,  without  the  Son,  to  make  God 
known,  see  that  you  fall  not  into  the  further  opinion 
that  without  the  Son  it  came  to  be.    But  if  through 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 


139 


tlie  Son  it  came  to  be,  and  in  Him  all  things  consist,  it 
must  follow  that  lie  wlio  contemplates  the  creation 
rightly,  is  contemplating  also  the  Word  who  framed  it, 
and  through  Him  begins  to  apprehend  the  Father. 
And  on  Philip^s  asking,  Show  its  the  Father,  He  said 
not,  ^  Behold  the  creation,^  but,  He  that  hath  seen  Me, 
hath  seen  the  Father.''  Orat.  i.  §  11,  12.  {Disc.  n.  17.) 

2.  It  is  then  the  original  o-vy/card^acrif;  of  the  Son, 
making  Himself  the  First-begotten  of  the  creation  in 
the  beginning,  which  breathes,  and  which  stamps  a  sort 
of  divinity  upon  the  natural  universe,  and  prepares  us 
for  that  far  higher  grace  and  glory  which  is  given  to 
human  nature  by  means  of  the  Incarnation ;  this 
evangelical  grace  being  not  merely  a  gift  from  above,  as 
resulting  from  the  o-vyKard^acrL'^,  but  an  inhabitation 
of  the  Giver  in  man,  a  communication  of  His 
Person,  and  a  participation,  as  it  may  be  called, 
of  the  Virtue  of  that  Person,  similar  to  that  which, 
when  He  came  upon  earth,  He  bestowed  on  individuals 
by  contact  with  His  hands  or  His  garments  for  their 
deliverance  from  bodily  ailments  or  injuries. 

^  Our  Lord,  then,  came  on  earth,  not  merely  as  the 
physician  of  our  souls,  but  as  the  First-born  and  the 
Parent  of  a  new  Family,  who  should  be  the  principle 
of  propagation  of  a  new  birth  in  a  fallen  world.  The 
flesh  being  first  sanctified  in  Him,  we  have  the  sequel 
of  the  Spirit^s  grace,  receiving  out  of  His  fulness/^ 
Orat.  i.  §  50  fin.  {Disc,  n.  83  fin.)  Therefore  did  He 
assume  the  body  created  and  human,  that,  having  re- 
newed it  as  its  Framer,  He  might  make  it  God  in 
Himself,  and  thus  might  introduce  us  all  into  the 


140 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 


kingdom  of  heaven  after  His  likeness."  Orat.  ii.  §  70. 

How  could  we  be  partakers  of  that  adoption  of  sons, 
unless  through  the  Son  we  had  received  from  Him 
that  communion  with  Him,  unless  His  Word  had  been 
made  flesh,  and  had  communicated  it  to  us  ? "  Iren. 
Hser.  iii.  18,  7. 

Hence  it  is  that  the  adoption  of  sons  which  is 
the  gift  which  we  gain  by  the  Incarnation,  is  far  more 
than  an  adoption  in  the  ordinary  sense  of  that  word, 
and  far  stronger  terms  are  used  of  it.  Athan.  says 
that  we  are  made  sons  truly,"  vloTTOioviieda  aXrjdco^, 
Deer.  §  31.  (Nic.  n.  45.)  Again  S.  Basil  says,  that  we 
are  sons,  KVplm,  properly,"  and  Trpcorco^;,  ^^primarily," 
in  opposition  to  ifc  /jbera^opd^  and  TpoiTiico)^;^  figura- 
tively," contr.  Eunom.  ii.  23,  24.  S.  Oyril  too  says  that 
we  are  sons  naturally,"  (fyvcrtfcw,  as  well  as  /cara  x^P^^s 
vid.  Suicer.  Thesaur.  v.  vlb<^,  i.  3.  Of  these  words, 
a\7}6o3<;,  (f)vacKCi)(;,  fcvpLco<;j  and  irpcorco^j  the  first  two 
are  commonly  reserved  for  our  Lord ;  e.g.  top  oXtjOw 
vlov,  Orat.  ii.  §  37.  (Disc.  n.  150  fin.)  rjiiel<;  viol,  ovk  co? 
iK€LVo<;  (f)va€t  koI  oXrjOeLa,  Orat.  iii.  §  19.  (Disc.  n.  251.) 
Hilary  indeed  seems  to  deny  us  the  title  of  proper" 
sons,  de  Trin.  xii.  15;  but  his  ^^proprium"  is  a  trans- 
lation of  cBiOVy  not  KVpLCO<^, 

IT  The  trne  statement  is,  that,  whereas  there  is  a 
primary  and  secondary  sense  in  which  the  word  Son  is 
used, — the  primary,  when  it  has  its  formal  meaning  of 
continuation  of  nature,  and  the  secondary,  when  it  is 
used  nominally,  or  for  an  external  resemblance  to  the 
first  meaning, — it  is  applied  to  the  regenerate,  not  in  the 
secondary  sense,  but  in  the  primary.    S.  Basil  and  S. 


GRACE  OF  GOD. 


141 


Gregory  Nyssen  consider  Son  to  be  a  term  of  rela- 
tionsliip  according  to  nature (vid.  art.  Son),  also 
Basil,  in  Psalm.  28^  1.  The  actual  presence  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  regenerate  in  substance  (vid.  Cyril. 
Dial.  7,  p.  638)  constitutes  this  relationship  of  nature ; 
and  hence  after  the  words  quoted  from  S.  Cyril  above, 
in  which  he  says^  that  we  are  sons  (j)V(7LKco<^j  he  proceeds 
naturally,  because  lue  are  in  Sim,  and  in  Him  alone/^ 
vid.  Athan.^s  words  which  follow  in  the  text  at  the  end 
of  Deer.  §  31.  And  hence  Nyssen  lays  down,  as  a 
received  truth,  that  to  none  does  the  term  ^  proper/ 
Kvpccorarov,  apply,  but  to  one  in  whom  the  name 
responds  with  truth  to  the  nature. contr.  Eunom.  iii. 
p.  123.  And  he  also  implies,  p.  117,  the  intimate 
association  of  our  sonship  with  ChrisVs,  when  he  con- 
nects together  regeneration  with  our  Lord^s  eternal 
generation,  neither  being  Sea  TraOov^,  or,  of  the  will  of 
the  flesh.  If  it  be  asked  what  the  distinctive  words  are 
which  are  incommunicably  the  Son^s,  since  so  much  is 
man's,  it  is  obvious  to  answer,  first,  tS^o?  vl6<;  and 
fjLOvoy€P7]<;,  which  are  in  Scripture ;  and,  next,  the 
symbols  Of  the  substance,^^  and  One  in  subsfcance,^^ 
of  the  Council ;  and  this  is  the  value  of  the  CounciFs 
phrases,  that,  while  they  guard  the  Son^s  divinity, 
they  allow  full  scope,  without  risk  of  trenching  on  that 
divinity,  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  as  to  the  fulness  of 
the  Christian  privileges. 


142 


THE  DIVINE  HAND. 


THE  DIVINE  HAND. 

GoD^  the  Creative  Origin  and  Cause  of  all  beings, 
acts  by  tlie  mediation,  ministration,  or  agency  of  His 
co-equal  Son.  To  symbolise  His  numerical  oneness 
with  that  Son,  the  Son  is  called  His  Hand. 

E.g.  by  Athan.  Dec.  §  7,  17.  Orat.  ii.  §  31,  71.  iv. 
26.    Also  Incarn.  c.  Ar.  12. 

Also  by  Clem.  Eecogn.  viii.  43.  Horn.  xvi.  12.  Me- 
thod ap.  Phot.  cod.  235,  p.  937.  Iren.  Hser.  iv.  prsef.  20, 
V.  1  and  5  and  6.  Clem.  Protr.  (brachium)  p.  93.  Potter. 
Tertull.  Herm.  45.  Cyprian.  Test.  ii.  4.  Euseb.  in 
Psalm.  108,  27.  Hilar.  Trin.  viii.  22.  Basil.  Eunom.  v. 
p.  297.  Cyril,  in  Joann.  476,  7,  et  alibi.  Thesaur. 
p.  154.  Job.  ap.  Phot.  p.  582.  August,  in  Joan.  48,  7 
(though  he  prefers  another  use  of  the  word),  p.  323. 

This  image  is  in  contrast  with  that  of  instrument, 
opyavoVf  which  the  Arians  would  use  to  express  the 
relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father,  as  implying  sepa- 
rateness  and  subservience,  whereas  the  word  Hand 
implies  His  consubstantiality ;  vid.  art.  Mediation. 


HERESIES. 


143 


HERESIES. 

%  Heresies  are  partial  views  of  the  truths  starting 
from  some  truth  which  they  exaggerate^  and  disowning 
and  protesting  against  other  truth,  which  they  fancy 
inconsistent  with  it. 

^  All  heresies  are  partial  views  of  the  truth,  and  are 
wrong,  not  so  much  in  what  they  directly  say  as  in 
what  they  deny. 

T  All  heresies  seem  connected  together  and  to  run 
into  each  other.  When  the  mind  has  embraced  one, 
it  is  almost  certain  to  run  into  others,  apparently 
the  most  opposite,  it  is  quite  uncertain  which. 
Thus  Arians  were  a  reaction  from  Sabellians,  yet 
did  not  the  less  consider  than  they  that  God  was  but 
one  Person,  and  that  Christ  was  a  creature.  ApoUi- 
naris  was  betrayed  into  his  heresy  by  opposing  the 
Arians,  yet  his  heresy  started  with  the  tenet  in  which 
the  Arians  ended,  that  Christ  had  no  human  soul. 
His  disciples  became,  and  even  naturally,  some  of 
them  Sabellians,  some  Arians.  Again,  beginning  with 
denying  our  Lord  a  soul,  Apollinaris  came  to  deny  Him 
a  body,  like  the  Manichees  and  Doceta3.  The  same 
passages  from  Athanasius  will  be  found  to  refute  both 
Eutychians  and  Nestorians,  though  diametrically  op- 
posed to  each  other  :  and  these  agreed  together,  not 
only  in  considering  nature  and  person  identical,  but, 


144 


HERESIES. 


strange  to  say,  in  holding  (and  tlie  ApoUinarians  too^) 
that  our  Lord^s  manhood  existed  before  its  union  with 
Him,  which  is  the  special  heresy  of  Nestorius,  Again, 
the  Nestorians  were  closely  connected  with  the  Sabellians 
and  Samosatenes,  and  the  latter  with  the  Photinians 
and  modern  Socinians.  And  the  Nestorians  were  con- 
nected with  the  Pelagians ;  and  Aerius,  who  denied 
Episcopacy  and  prayers  for  the  dead,  with  the  Arians  ; 
and  his  opponent  the  Semi-Arian  Eustathius  with  the 
Encratites.  One  reason  of  course  of  this  peculiarity 
of  heresy  is,  that  when  the  mind  is  once  unsettled,  it 
may  fall  into  any  error.  Another  is  that  it  is  heresy ; 
all  heresies  being  secretly  connected,  as  in  temper,  so 
in  certain  primary  principles.  And  lastly,  the  Truth 
only  is  a  real  doctrine,  and  therefore  stable ;  every- 
thing false  is  of  a  transitory  nature  and  has  no  stay, 
like  reflections  in  a  stream,  one  opinion  continually 
passing  into  another,  and  creations  being  but  the  first 
stages  of  dissolution.  Hence  so  much  is  said  in  the 
Fathers  of  orthodoxy  being  a  narrow  way.  Thus  S. 
Gregory  speaks  of  the  middle  and  royal  ^'  way. 
Orat.  32,  6,  also  Damasc.  contr.  Jacob,  iii.  t.  1,  p.  398 ; 
vid.  also  Leon.  Ep.  85,  1,  p.  1051 ;  Ep.  129,  p.  1254, 
brevissima  adjectione  corrumpitur ;  also  Serm.  25,  1, 
p.  83  ;  also  Vigil,  in  Eutych.  i.  init.  Quasi  inter  duos 
latrones  crucifigitur  Dominus,^^  &c.  Novat.  Trin.  30. 
vid.  the  promise,  Thine  ears  shall  hear  a  word  behind 
thee,  saying.  This  is  the  way,  walk  ye  in  it,  and  go 
not  aside  either  to  the  right  hand,  or  to  the  left/^ 
Is.  XXX.  21. 

IT  Heresies  run  into  each  other,  (one  may  even  say,) 


HERESIES. 


145 


logically.  No  doctrines  were  apparently  more  opposed, 
whether  historically  or  ethically,  than  the  Arian  and  the 
Apollinarian  or  the  Monophysite;  nay,  in  statement, 
so  far  as  the  former  denied  that  our  Lord  was  God, 
the  latter  that  He  was  man.  But  their  agreement  lay  in 
this  compromise,  that  strictly  speaking  He  was  neither 
God  nor  man.  Thus  in  Orat.  ii.  §  8,  Athan.  hints 
that  if  the  Arians  gave  the  titles  (such  as  Priest) 
which  really  belonged  to  our  Lord^s  manhood,  to  His 
pre-existent  nature,  what  were  they  doing  but  remov- 
ing the  evidences  of  His  manhood,  and  so  far  denying 
it  ?  Vid.  the  remarkable  passage  of  the  Council  of 
Sardica  against  Valens  and  TJrsacius  quoted  supr. 
vol.  i.  p.  IIG.  In  the  Arian  Creed  No.  vii.  or  second 
Sirmian,  it  is  implied  that  the  Divine  Son  is  passible, 
the  very  doctrine  against  which  Theodoret  writes  one  of 
his  Anti-monophysite  Dialogues,  called  Eranistes.  He 
writes  another  on  the  arpeirrov  of  Christ,  a  doctrine 
which  was  also  formally  denied  by  Arius,  and  is  de- 
fended by  Athan.  Orat.  i.  §  35.  Vid.  art.  Eusehiiis,  who 
speaks  of  our  Lord^s  taking  a  hod}],  almost  to  the  pre- 
judice of  the  doctrine  of  His  taking  a  perfect  man- 
hood  ;  el  fjuev  ^v')(fj<;  Bifcrjv,  &c.,  supr.  p.  106.  Hence  it  is 
that  Gibbon  throws  out  (ch.  47,  note  34),  after  La  Croze, 
Hist.  Christ,  des  Indes,  p.  11,  that  the  Arians  invented 
the  term  Oeoroico^,  which  the  Monopliysites,  in  their  own 
sense  strenuously  held,  vid.  Garner  in  Mar.  Merc.  t.  2,  p. 
299.  If  the  opposites  of  connected  heresies  are  in  fact 
themselves  connected  together,  then  the  doctrinal  con- 
nection of  Arianism  and  Apollinarianism  is  shown  in 
their  respective  opposition  to  the  heresies  of  Sabellius 

VOL.  II.  L 


146 


HERESIES. 


and  Nestorius.  Salig  (Eatycli.  ant.  Eufc.  10)  denies 
the  connection^  but  with  very  little  show  of  reason. 
La  Croze  calls  Apollinarianism  Arianismi  tradux/^ 
Thes.  Ep.  Lacroz.  t.  3,  p.  276. 

^  It  was  the  tendency  of  all  the  heresies  concern- 
ing the  Person  of  Christ  to  explain  away  or  deny 
the  Atonement.  The  Arians^  after  the  Platonists, 
insisted  on  the  pre-existing  Priesthood^  as  if  the  in- 
carnation and  crucifixion  were  not  of  its  essence.  The 
ApoUinarians  resolved  the  Incarnation  into  a  manifes- 
tation^ Theod.  Eran.  i.  The  Nestorians  denied  the 
Atonement,  Procl.  ad  Armen.  p.  615.  And  the  Euty- 
chians^  Leon.  Ep.  28^  5. 

^  It  is  remarkable  that  the  Monophysites  should  have 
been  forced  into  their  circumscription  of  the  Divine- 
Nature  by  the  limits  of  the  human^  considering  that 
Eutyches  their  Patriarch  began  with  asserting  for 
reverence- sake  that  the  Incarnate  Word  was  not  under 
the  laws  of  human  nature^  vid.  infra  art.  Specialties, 
&c.  This  is  another  instance  of  the  running  of 
opposite  heresies  into  each  other.  Another  remark- 
able instance  will  be  found  in  art.  Ignorance,  viz.  tho 
Agnoetae,  a  sect  of  those  very  Eutychians^  who  denied 
or  tended  to  deny  our  Lord^s  manhood  with  a  view  of 
preserving  His  Divinity^  yet  who  were  characterised 
by  holding  that  He  was  ignorant  as  man. 

T[  This  passage  of  the  Apostle/'  Rom.  i.  1,  [Mar- 
cellus]  I  know  not  why  perverts^  instead  of  declared, 
optaOevTO^,  making  it  predestined,  TrpoopLcrOivro^,  that 
the  Son  may  be  such  as  they  who  are  predestined  ac- 
cording to  foreknowledge.^'    Euseb.  contr.  Marc.  i.  2. 


HERESIES. 


147 


Paul  of  Samosata  also  considered  our  Lord  Son  by 
foreknowledge^  Trpoyvcoo-ec,  vid.  Routh^  Reliqu.  t.  2^ 
p.  466 ;  and  Eunomias^  Apol.  24. 

IF  In  spite  of  their  differing  diametrically  from  each 
other  in  their  respective  heresies  about  the  Holy  Trinity, 
that  our  Lord  was  not  really  the  Divine  Word  was 
a  point  in  which  Arians  and  Sabellians  agreed,  vid. 
infr.  Orat.  iv.  init. ;  also  ii.  §  22,  40,  also  Sent.  D.  25. 
Ep.  Mg.  14  fin.    Epiph.  H^r.  72,  p.  835. 

^  Heretics  have  frequently  assigned  reverence  as  the 
cause  of  their  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Church; 
and  if  even  Arius  was  obliged  to  affect  it,  the  plea  may 
be  expected  in  any  others.  0  stultos  et  impios  metus,^^ 
says  S.  Hilary,  et  irreligiosam  de  Deo  sollicitudinem.^^ 
de  Trin.  iv.  6.  It  was  still  more  commonly  professed  in 
regard  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  Thus 
Manes,  Absit  ut  Dominum  nostrum  Jesum  Christum 
per  naturalia  mulieris  descendisse  confitear;  ipse  enim 
testimonium  dat,  quia  de  sinibus  Patris  descendit.''^ 
Archel.  Disp.  t.  iii.  p.  601.  We,  as  saying  that  the  Word 
of  God  is  incapable  of  defilement,  even  by  the  assump- 
tion of  mortal  and  vulnerable  fiesh,  fear  not  to  believe 
that  He  is  born  of  a  Virgin ;  ye,^^  Manichees,  ^''because 
with  impious  perverseness  ye  believe  the  Son  of  God 
to  be  capable  of  it,  dread  to  commit  Him  to  the  flesh. 
August,  contr.  Secund.  9.  Faustus  ^^is  neither  willing 
to  receive  Jesus  of  the  seed  of  David,  nor  made  of  a 
woman  .  .  .  nor  the  death  of  Christ  itself,  and  burial, 
and  resurrection,^^  &c.  August,  contr.  Faust,  xi.  3. 
As  the  Manichees  denied  our  Lord  a  body,  so  the 
Apollinarians  denied  Him  a  rational  soul,  still  under 

L  2 


148 


HERESIES. 


pretence  of  reverence^  because^  as  they  said^  the  soul 
was  necessarily  sinful.  Leontius  makes  this  their  main 
argument^  o  1/01)9  aiJbapTif\TiKo<^  eart,  de  Sect.  iv.  p.  507; 
vid.  also  Greg.  Naz.  Ep.  101^  ad  Cledon.  p.  89 ;  Athan. 
in  Apoll.  i.  2,  14;  Epiph.  Ancor.  79,  80.  Athan.  and 
others  call  the  Apollinarian  doctrine  Manichean  in  con- 
sequence, vid.  in  Apoll.  ii.  8^  9,  &c.  Again^  the  Era- 
nistes  in  Theodoret^  who  advocates  a  similar  doctrine^ 
will  not  call  our  Lord  man.  I  consider  it  important 
to  acknowledge  an  assumed  nature,  but  to  call  the 
Saviour  of  the  world  man  is  to  impair  our  Lord^s 
glory.''^  Eranist.  ii.  p.  83.  Eutyches,  on  the  other 
hand,  would  call  our  Lord  man,  but  refused  to  admit 
His  human  nature,  and  still  with  the  same  profession. 

Ego/^  he  says,  ^^sciens  sanctos  et  beatos  patres 
nostros  refutantes  duarum  naturarum  vocabulum,  et 
non  audens  de  natura  tractare  Dei  Verbi,  qui  in  carnem 
venit,  in  veritate  non  in  phantasmate  homo  factus/' 
&c.  Leon.  Ep.  21,  1  fin.  ''Forbid  it/'  he  says  at 
Constantinople,  '*  that  I  should  say  that  the  Christ 
was  of  two  natures,  or  should  discuss  the  nature, 
(pvcTioXoyeiv,  of  my  God."^'  Concil.  t.  2,  p.  157.  And 
so  in  this  day  popular  Tracts  have  been  published, 
ridiculing  St.  Luke's  account  of  our  Lord's  nativity 
under  pretence  of  reverence  towards  the  God  of  all, 
and  interpreting  Scripture  allegorically  on  Pantheistic 
principles.  A  modern  argument  for  Universal  Eesti- 
tution  takes  the  same  form  :  ''  Do  not  we  shrink  from 
the  notion  of  another's  being  sentenced  to  eternal 
punishment ;  are  we  more  merciful  than  God  ?  "  vid. 
Matt.  xvi.  22,  23. 


HERESIES. 


149 


IT  That  heresies  before  the  Arian  appealed  to 
Scripture  we  learn  from  Tertullian^  de  Praescr.  42, 
who  warns  Catholics  against  indulging  themselves 
in  their  own  view  of  isolated  texts  against  the  voice 
of  the  Catholic  Church,  vid.  also  Vincentius,  who 
specifies  obiter  Sabellius  and  Novatian.  Commonit.  2. 
Still  Arianism  was  contrasted  with  other  heresies 
on  this  point,  as  in  these  two  respects  :  (1.)  they  ap- 
pealed to  a  secret  traditvm,  unknown  even  to  most  of 
the  Apostles,  as  the  Gnostics^  Iren.  Ha3r.  iii.  1 ;  or  they 
professed  a  gift  of  prophecy  introducing  fresh  revela- 
tions, as  Montanists,  Syn.  §  4,  and  Manichees,  Aug. 
contr.  Faust,  xxxii.  6.  (2.)  The  Arians  availed  them- 
selves of  certain  texts  as  objections,  argued  keenly  and 
plausibly  from  them,  and  would  not  be  driven  from 
them.  Orat.  ii.  §  18,  c. ;  Epiph.  Hasr.  69,  15.  Or 
rather  they  took  some  words  of  Scripture,  and  made 
their  own  deductions  from  them  ;  viz.  Son,^^  made,^^ 
exalted/^  &c. 


150 


HERETICS. 


HERETICS. 

Revealed  trutli^  to  be  what  it  professes^  must 
have  an  uninterrupted  descent  from  the  Apostles  ;  its 
teachers  must  be  unanimous^  and  persistent  in  their 
unanimity ;  and  it  must  bear  no  human  master^ s  name 
as  its  designation. 

On  the  other  hand^  first  novelty^  next  discordance, 
vacillation,  change,  thirdly  sectarianism,  are  conse- 
quences and  tokens  of  religious  error. 

These  tests  stand  to  reason ;  for  what  is  over  and 
above  nature  must  come  from  divine  revelation ;  and, 
if  so,  it  must  descend  from  the  very  date  when  it  was 
revealed,  else  it  is  but  matter  of  opinion;  and 
opinions  vary,  and  have  no  warrant  of  permanence, 
but  depend  upon  the  relative  ability  and  success  of 
individual  teachers,  one  with  another,  from  whom  they 
take  their  names. 

The  Fathers  abound  in  passages  which  illustrate 
these  three  tests. 

^  Who  are  you  ?  says  Tertullian,  whence  and 
when  came  ye  ?  what  do  ye  on  my  property,  being 
none  of  mine  ?  by  what  right,  0  Marcion,  cuttest  thou 
my  wood  ?  by  what  licence,  0  Valentinus,  turnest  thou 
my  springs  ?  by  what  power,  0  Apelles,  movest  thou 
my  landmarks  ?  Mine  is  possession.  ...  I  possess  of 
old,  I  have  prior  possession.  ...  I  am  heir  of  the 
Apostles.-"^  TertuU.  de  Praescr.  37.        Tardily  for  me 


HERETICS. 


151 


hath  this  time  of  day  put  forth  these^  in  my  judgment, 
most  impious  doctors.  Full  late  hath  that  faith  of 
mine,  which  Thou  hast  taught  me,  encountered  these 
Masters.  Before  these  names  were  heard  of,  I  thus 
believed  in  Thee,  I  thus  was  new  born  by  Thee,  and 
thenceforth  I  thus  am  Thine.''^    Hil.  de  Trin.  vi.  21. 

What  heresy  hath  ever  burst  forth,  but  under  the 
name  of  some  certain  men,  in  some  certain  place,  and 
at  some  certain  time  ?  who  ever  set  up  any  heresy, 
but  first  divided  himself  from  the  consent  of  the 
universality  and  antiquity  of  the  Catholic  Church  ? 
Vincent.  Lir.  Commonit.  24.  I  will  tell  thee  my  mind 
briefly  and  plainly,  that  thou  shouldest  remain  in  that 
Church  which,  being  founded  by  the  Apostles,  endures 
e^en  to  this  day.  When  thou  hearest  that  those  who 
are  called  Christ^s,  are  named,  not  after  Jesus  Christ, 
but  after  some  one,  say  Marcionites,  Valentinians,  &c., 
know  then  it  is  not  Christ^s  Church,  but  the  synagogue 
of  Antichrist.  For  by  the  very  fact  that  they  are 
formed  afterwards,  they  show  that  they  are  those  who 
the  Apostle  foretold  should  come.^^  Jerom.  in  Lucif. 
27.  If  the  Church  was  not  .  .  .  whence  hath 
Donatus  appeared  ?  from  what  soil  has  he  sprung  ? 
out  of  what  sea  hath  he  emerged  ?  from  wliat  heaven 
hath  he  fallen  ?  August,  de  Bapt.  contr.  Don.  iii.  2. 
vid.  art.  Catholic,  &c. 

^  '^However  the  error  was,  certainly,^'  says  TertuUian 
ironically,  error  reigned  so  long  as  heresies  were  not. 
Truth  needed  a  rescue,  and  looked  out  for  Marcionites 
and  Valentinians.^^  Meanwhile^  gospelling  was  nought, 
faith  was  nought,  nought  was  the  baptism  of  so  many 


152 


HERETICS. 


thousand  thousand^  so  many  works  of  faith  performed^ 
so  many  virtues^  so  many  gifts  displayed,  so  many 
priesthoods,  so  many  ministries  exercised,  nay,  so  many 
martyrdoms  crowned/^  Tertull.  Prsescr.  29.  ^  Pro- 
fane novelties/  which  if  we  receive,  of  necessity  the 
faith  of  our  blessed  ancestors,  either  all  or  a  great  part 
of  it,  must  be  overthrown ;  the  faithful  people  of  all 
ages  and  times,  all  holy  saints,  all  the  chaste,  all  the 
continent,  all  the  virgins,  all  the  Clergy,  the  Deacons, 
the  Priests,  so  many  thousands  of  confessors,  so  great 
armies  of  martyrs,  so  many  famous  populous  cities  and 
commonwealths,  so  many  islands,  provinces,  kings, 
tribes,  kingdoms,  nations,  to  conclude,  almost  now  the 
whole  world,  incorporated  by  the  Catholic  Faith  to 
Christ  their  head,  must  needs  be  said,  so  many  hundred 
years,  to  have  been  ignorant,  to  have  erred,  to  have 
blasphemed,  to  have  believed  they  knew  not  what/^ 
Vine.  Comm.  24.  0  the  extravagance  !  the  wisdom, 
hidden  until  Christ^s  coming,  they  announce  to  us  to- 
day, which  is  a  thing  to  draw  tears.  For  if  the  faith 
began  thirty  years  since,  while  near  four  hundred  are 
past  since  Christ  was  manifested,  nought  hath  been 
our  gospel  that  long  while,  and  nought  our  faith,  and 
fruitlessly  have  martyrs  been  martyred,  and  fruitlessly 
have  such  and  so  great  rulers  ruled  the  people.'^  Greg. 
Naz.  ad  Cledon.  Ep.  102,  p.  97. 

%  They  know  not  to  be  reverent  even  to  their 
leaders.  And  this  is  why  commonly  schisms  exist  not 
among  heretics ;  because  while  they  exist,  they  are  not 
visible.  Schism  is  their  very  unity.  I  am  a  liar  if 
they  do  not  dissent  from  their  own  rules,  while  every 


HERETICS. 


153 


man  among  them  equally  alters  at  his  private  judgment 
(suo  arbitrio)  what  he  has  received^  just  as  he  who 
gave  to  them  composed  it  at  his  private  judgment. 
The  progress  of  the  thing  is  true  to  its  nature  and  its 
origin.  What  was  a  right  to  Valentinus^  was  a  right 
to  Valentinians^  what  to  Marcion  was  to  the  Marcionites^ 
to  innovate  on  the  faith  at  their  private  judgment. 
As  soon  as  any  heresy  is  thoroughly  examined^  it  is 
found  in  many  points  dissenting  from  its  parent. 
Those  parents  for  the  most  part  have  no  Churches ; 
they  roam  about  without  mother^  without  see^  bereaved 
of  the  faith,  without  a  country,  without  a  home.^^ 
Tertull.  Prsescr.  42.  He  writes/^  says  Athan.  of 
Constantius,  and  while  he  writes  repents^  and  while 
he  repents  is  exasperated  ;  and  then  he  grieves  again, 
and  not  knowing  how  to  act,  he  shows  how  bereft  the 
soul  is  of  understanding.'^  Hist.  Arian.  70;  vid.  also 
ad  Ep.  Mg.  6. 

H  Faith  is  made  a  thing  of  dates  rather  than 
Gospels,  while  it  is  written  down  by  years,  and  is  not 
measured  by  the  confession  of  baptism/^  Hil.  ad  Const, 
ii.  4.  We  determine  yearly  and  monthly  creeds  con- 
cerning God,  we  repent  of  our  determinations ;  we 
defend  those  who  repent,  we  anathematise  those  whom 
we  have  defended ;  we  condemn  our  own  doings  in 
those  of  others,  or  others  in  us,  and  gnawing  each 
other,  we  are  well-nigh  devoured  one  of  another.^^ 
ibid.  5.  It  happens  to  thee,^^  says  S.  Hilary  to  Con- 
stantius,  ^^as  to  unskilful  builders,  always  to  bo  dissatis- 
fied with  what  thou  hast  done ;  thou  art  ever  destroying 
what  thou  art  ever  building.'^  contr.  Constant.  23. 


154 


HERETICS. 


^  The  Emperor  [Theodosius]  had  a  conversa- 
tion with  Nectarius,  Bishop  [of  Constantinople],  in 
what  way  to  make  Christendom  concordant^  and  to 
unite  the  Church.  .  .  This  made  Nectarius  anxious ;  but 
Sisinnius^  a  man  of  ready  speech  and  of  practical  ex- 
perience^ and  thoroughly  versed  in  the  interpretation 
of  the  sacred  writings  and  in  the  doctrines  of  philo- 
sophy^ having  a  conviction  that  disputation  would  but 
aggravate  the  party-spirit  of  the  heretics  instead  of 
reconciling  schisms,  advised  him  to  avoid  dialectic 
engagements,  and  to  appeal  to  the  statements  of  the 
ancients,  and  to  put  the  question  to  the  heresiarchs 
from  the  Emperor,  whether  they  made  any  sort  of 
account  of  the  doctors  who  belonged  to  the  Church 
before  the  division,  or  came  to  issue  with  them  as 
aliens  from  Christianity ;  for  if  they  made  their  autho- 
rity null,  therefore  let  them  venture  to  anathematise 
them.  But  if  they  did  venture,  then  they  would  be 
driven  out  by  the  people.''^  Socr.  v.  10. 

IT  They  who  do  not  pertinaciously  defend  their 
opinion,  false  and  perverse  though  it  be,  especially 
when  it  does  not  spring  from  the  audacity  of  their 
own  presumption,  but  has  come  to  them  from  parents 
seduced  and  lapsed  into  error,  while  they  seek  the 
truth  with  cautious  solicitude,  and  are  prepared  to 
correct  themselves  when  they  have  found  it,  are  by  no 
means  to  be  ranked  among  heretics.''^  August.  Ep. 
43,  init. ;  vid.  also  de  Bapt.  contr.  Don.  iv.  20. 


HIERACAS — HOMOUSION,  HOMCEUSION.  155 


HIERACAS. 

HiERACAS  was  a  Manichasan.  He  compared  the  Two 
Divine  Persons  to  the  two  lights  of  one  lamp^  where 
the  oil  is  common  and  the  flame  double^  thus  implying 
a  third  substance  distinct  from  Father  and  Son^  or  to 
a  flame  divided  into  two  by  (for  instance)  the  papyrus 
which  was  commonly  used  instead  of  a  wick.  vid. 
Hilar,  de  Trin.  vi.  12. 

%  This  doctrine  is  also  imputed  to  Valentinus, 
though  in  a  diflerent  sense,  by  Nazianzen^  Orat.  33. 
16.  vid.  also  Clement.  Recogn.  i.  69. 


HOMOUSION,  HOMCEUSION. 

Vid.  ofioovaiov,  Nicene  Tests,  SGmi-Arians,  &c. 


156 


HYPOCRISY,  HYPOCRITES. 


HYPOCRISY,  HYPOCRITES. 


This  is  almost  a  title  of  tlie  Arians,  (with,  an  apparent 
allusion  to  1  Tim.  iv.  2.  vid,  Socr.  i.  p.  13.  Athan.  Orat.  i. 
§  10,  ii.  §  1  and  §  19,  iii.  §  16.  Syn.  §  32.  Ep.  Enc.  6. 
Ep.  Mg.  18.  Epiph.  Hser.  73,  1,)  and  that  in  various 
senses.  The  first  meaning  is  that,  being  heretics,  they 
nevertheless  used  orthodox  phrases  and  statements  to 
deceive  and  seduce  Catholics.  The  term  is  thus  used 
by  Alexander  in  the  beginning  of  the  controversy, 
vid.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  pp.  729,  746.  Again,  it  implies 
that  they  agreed  with  Arius,  but  would  not  confess  it ; 
professed  to  be  Catholics,  but  would  not  anathematise 
him.  vid.  Athan.  ad  Ep.  -^g.  20,  or  alleged  untruly 
the  Nicene  Council  as  their  ground  of  complaint,  ibid. 
§  18.  Again,  it  is  used  of  the  hoUowness  and  pretence 
of  their  ecclesiastical  proceedings,  with  the  Emperor 
at  their  head;  which  were  a  sort  of  make-belief  of 
spiritual  power,  or  piece  of  acting,  Spa/jLarovpyy/jLa.  Ep. 
Encycl.  2  and  6.  It  also  means  general  insincerity,  as 
if  they  were  talking  about  what  they  did  not  uuder- 
stand,  and  did  not  realise  what  they  said,  and  were 
blindly  implicating  themselves  in  evils  of  a  fearful  cha- 
racter. Thus  Athan.  calls  them  (as  cited  supr.)  rou?  tt)? 
^ApeLov  avia<^  VTroKpcrd^;,  Orat.  ii.  §  1,  init.  ;  and  he 
speaks  of  the  evil  spirit  making  them  his  sport,  rot? 
vTroKpLvofMevoL^;  rrjv  jxaviav  avrov,  ad  Serap.  i.  1.  And 


HYPOCRISY^  HYPOCKITES. 


157 


hence  furtlier  it  is  applied,  at  Syn.  §  32,  as  though 
with  severity,  yet  to  those  who  were  near  the  truth, 
and  who,  though  in  sin,  would  at  length  come  to  it  or 
not,  according  as  the  state  of  their  hearts  was.  He  is 
here  anticipating  the  return  into  the  Church  of  those 
whom  he  thus  censures.  In  this  sense,  though  with 
far  more  severity  in  what  he  says,  the  writer  of  a 
Tract  imputed  to  Athan.  against  the  Catholicising 
Semi-Arians  of  363,  entitles  it  "  On  the  Jujpocrisy  of 
Meletius  and  Eusebius  of  Samosata/^  It  is  remark- 
able that  what  Athan.  here  predicts  was  fulfilled  to 
the  letter,  even  of  the  worst  of  these  hypocrites.^^ 
For  Acacius  himself,  who  in  361  signed  the  Anomoean 
Confession  above  recorded  (vid.  vol.  i.  supr.p.  121,  note), 
was  one  of  those  very  men  who  accepted  the  Homoiision 
with  an  explanation  in  363. 


158 


HYPOSTASIS. 


HYPOSTASIS. 

vTroaracn^;,  subsistence^  person.  It  is  remarkable  how 
seldom  this  word  occurs  in  Athanasius  except  as  found 
in  Hebr.  i.  3 ;  and  the  more  so  because  it  is  a  term  little 
known  outside  Christian  theology^  and  within  that 
theology  after  Athan.-'s  time  so  important  and  authentic. 
It  is  not  founds  I  believe,  in  his  first  two  Orations ;  twice 
in  the  third ;  in  the  fourth,  which  seems  a  distinct  work 
from  the  three^  by  contrast  five  times,  and  often  in  S. 
Alexander's  Letter  in  Theodore t^  to  his  namesake 
at  Constantinople.  Vid.  art.  eISo9  and  ovaia,  which 
Athan,  seems  to  use  instead  of  it. 

It  would  seem  as  if  there  were  a  class  of  words 
which^  in  the  first  age^  before  the  theological  ter- 
minology was  fixed  by  ecclesiastical  determinations^ 
admitted  of  standing  either  for  the  Divine  Being  or  a 
Divine  Person  according  to  the  occasion ;  and  this^  as 
being  one  of  them^  was  not  definite  or  precise  enough 
for  a  mind  so  clear  as  Athan.-'s;  vid.  Orat.  iii.  §  66^  iv. 
§  1,  25,  33,  35.  Vid.  art.  ovaia. 


IDOLATKY  OF  ARIANISM. 


159 


IDOLATRY  OF  ARIANISM. 

Arians  considered  our  Lord  a  creature^  with  a  be- 
ginning of  existence^  with  a  probation^  and  during  it  a 
liability  to  fall.  Yet  it  was  one  of  their  fundamental 
tenets  that  He  was  Creator  of  the  universe^  and  created 
in  order  to  create.  Accordingly  Athan.  and  the  other 
Fathers  rightly  charge  them  with  idol  worship. 

^^We  must  take  reverent  heed/^  says  Athanasius, 

lest  transferring  what  is  proper  to  the  Father  to 
what  is  unlike  Him^  and  expressing  the  Father^s  god- 
head by  what  is  unlike  in  kind  and  alien^  we  introduce 
another  being  foreign  to  Him^  as  if  capable  of  the  pro- 
perties of  the  firsts  and  lest  we  be  silenced  by  God 
Himself,  saying,  My  glory  I  will  not  give  to  another, 
and  be  discovered  worshipping  this  alien  God.^^  Syn. 
§  50.  Who  told  them,  after  abandoning  the  worship 
of  creatures,  after  all  to  draw  near  and  to  worship  a 
creature  and  a  work  ?  Orat.  i.  §  8.  vid.  also  Orat.  ii. 
§  14.  Ep.  ^gypt.  4  and  13.  Adelph.  3.  Scrap,  i.  29. 

This  point,  as  might  be  expected,  is  insisted  on  by 
other  Fathers,  vid.  Cyril.  Dial.  iv.  p.  511,  &c.  v.  p.  566. 
Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  40.  42.  Hil.  Trin.  viii.  28.  Ambros. 
de  Fid.  i.  n.  69  and  104.    Theod.  in  Rom.  i.  25. 

^  The  Arians  were  in  the  dilemma  of  holding  two 
Gods,  or  worshipping  the  creature,  unless  they  denied 
to  the  Lord  both  divinity  and  worship,    lience  Athan. 


160 


IDOLATRY  OF  ARIANISM. 


says^  ^acr/coz^re?,  ov  Xeyo/juep  Svo  ayevrjra,  Xeyovcn  Bvo 
6eov'^,  Orat.  iii.  16.  But  every  substance/^  says  S. 
Austin^  which  is  not  God^  is  a  creature^  and  which 
is  not  a  creature,  is  God/^  de  Trin.  i.  6.  And  so  S. 
Cyril,  We  see  God  and  creation  and  besides  nothing; 
for  whatever  falls  external  to  God^s  nature  has  certainly 
a  maker;  and  whatever  is  clear  of  the  definition  of 
creation,  is  certainly  within  the  definition  of  the  God- 
head/^ In  Joan.  p.  52.  vid.  also  Naz.  Orat.  31.  6. 
Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  31. 

^  Petavius  gives  a  large  collection  of  passages,  de 
Trin.  ii.  12,  §  5,  from  other  Fathers  in  proof  of  the 
worship  of  Our  Lord  evidencing  His  Godhead. 


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD.  161 


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY 
OUR  LORD. 

"  It  is  plain  that  He  knows  the  hour  of  the  end 
of  all  things/-*  says  Athan.^  as  the  Word^  though 
as  man  He  is  ignorant  of  it^  for  ignorance  belongs  to 
man.'^'    Orat.  iii.  §  43^  and  Scrap,  ii.  9. 

S.  Easily  on  the  general  question  being  asked  him, 
of  our  Lord^s  infirmities,  by  S.  Amphilochius,  says  that 
he  shall  give  him  the  answer  he  had  heard  from  boy- 
hood from  the  fathers/^  but  which  was  more  fitted  for 
pious  Christians  than  for  cavillers,  and  that  is,  that  Our 
Lord  says  many  things  to  men  in  His  human  aspect, 
as  ^  Give  Me  to  drink,^  .  .  .  yet  He  who  asked  was  not 
flesh  without  a  soul,  but  Godhead  using  flesh  which 
had  one/^  Ep.  236,  1.  He  goes  on  to  suggest  an- 
other explanation  about  His  ignorance  which  is  men- 
tioned below.  And  S.  Cyril,  Let  them  [the  heretics] 
strip  the  Word  openly  of  the  flesh  and  what  it  implies, 
and  destroy  outright  the  whole  Economy  [Incarnation] , 
and  then  they  will  clearly  see  the  Son  as  God  ;  or,  if 
they  shudder  at  this  as  impious  and  absurd,  why  blush 
they  at  the  conditions  of  the  manhood,  and  determine 
to  find  faulfc  with  what  especially  befits  the  economy 
of  the  flesh  ?  Trin.  pp.  623,  4.  Vid.  also  Thes. 
p.  220.  *^  As  He  submitted  as  man  to  hunger  and 
thirst,  so  .  .  .  to  be  ignorant,'^  p.  221.  Vid.  also  Naz. 
VOL.  II.  M 


162     IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD. 

Orat.  30.  15.  Theodoret  expresses  the  same  opinion 
very  strongly^  speaking  of  a  gradual  revelation  to  tlie 
manhood  from  the  Godhead^  but  in  an  argument  when 
it  was  to  his  point  to  do  so^  in  Anath.  4,  t.  v.  p.  23,  ed. 
Schulze.  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  also  speaks  of  a 
revelation  made  by  the  Word.  ap.  Leont.  iii.  c.  Nest. 
(Canis.  i.  p.  579). 

^  Though  our  Lord,  as  having  two  natures,  had  a 
human  as  well  as  a  divine  knowledge,  and  though  that 
human  knowledge  was  not  only  limited  because  human, 
but  liable  to  ignorance  in  matters  in  which  greater 
knowledge  was  possible ;  yet  it  is  the  received  doc- 
trine, that  in  fact  He  was  not  ignorant  even  in  His 
human  nature,  according  to  its  capacity,  since  it  was 
from  the  first  taken  out  of  its  original  and  natural 
condition,  and  deified  by  its  union  with  the  Word. 
As  then  (infra  art.  SpecialtieSy  part  5)  His  manhood 
was  created,  yet  He  may  not  be  called  a  creature  even 
in  His  manhood,  and  as  {ihid.  part  6)  His  flesh 
was  in  its  abstract  nature  a  servant,  yet  He  is  not  a 
servant  in  fact,  even  as  regards  the  flesh ;  so,  though 
He  took  on  Him  a  soul  which  left  to  itself  would  have 
been  partially  ignorant,  as  other  human  souls,  yet  as  ever 
enjoying  the  Beatific  Vision  from  its  oneness  with  the 
Word,  it  never  was  ignorant  in  fact,  but  knew  all  things 
which  human  soul  can  know.  vid.  Eulog.  ap.  Phot.  230, 
p.  884.  As  Pope  Gregory  expresses  it,  Novit  in 
natura,  non  ex  natura  human itatis.^^  ^^PP*  ^»  ^9. 
However,  this  view  of  the  sacred  subject  was  not  received 
by  the  Church  till  after  S.  Athanasius^s  daj^,  and  it  can- 
not be  denied  that  he  and  others  of  the  most  eminent 


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD.  163 

Fathers  use  language  whicL.  prwia  facie  is  inconsistent 
with  it.  They  certainly  seem  to  impute  ignorance  to 
our  Lord  as  man,  as  Athan.  in  the  passage  cited  above. 
Of  course  it  is  not  meant  that  our  Lord^s  soul  had  the 
same  perfect  knowledge  which  He  has  as  God.  This 
was  the  assertion  of  a  General  of  the  Hermits  of  S. 
Austin  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Basil,  when  the 
proposition  was  formally  condemned,  animam  Christi 
Deum  videre  tam  clare  et  intense  quam  clare  et 
intense  Deus  videt  seipsum.^^  vid.  Berti  0pp.  t.  3^ 
p.  42.  Yet  Fulgentius  had  said,  ^'  I  think  that  in 
no  respect  was  full  knowledge  of  the  Godhead  want- 
ing to  that  Soul,  whose  Person  is  one  with  the 
Word, — whom  Wisdom  did  so  assume  that  it  is  itself 
that  same  Wisdom,^^  ad  Ferrand.  Resp.  iii.  p.  223^ 
ed.  1639  ;  though,  ad  Trasimund.  i.  7,  he  speaks  of 
ignorance  attaching  to  our  Lord^s  human  nature. 

^  S.  Basil  takes  the  words  ouS'  6  u/o?,  ei  fjur)  6  irarrjp, 
to  mean,  nor  does  the  Son  know  except  the  Father 
knows,^^  or  nor  would  the  Son  but  for,^^  &c.,  or 
nor  does  the  Son  know,  except  as  the  Father  knows.''^ 
The  cause  of  the  Son^s  knowing  is  from  the  Father.^^ 
Ep.  236,  2.  S.  Gregory  alludes  to  the  same  interpreta- 
tion, 0^8'  6  vLo<;  i)  6)^  on  6  7raTr}p,  ^'  Since  the  Father 
knows,  therefore  the  Son.^^  Naz.  Orat.  30.  16.  S. 
Irena3us  seems  to  adopt  the  same  when  he  says,  '^J'he 
Son  was  not  ashamed  to  refer  the  knowledge  of  that 
day  to  the  Father  Hoor.  ii.  28,  n.  6,  as  Naz.  supr. 
uses  the  words  iirl  t7]v  alrlav  ava^epeaOw,  And  so 
Photius  distinctly,  (^PXV^  avac^eperat^  '  Not  the 
Son,    but   the  Father,'    that  is,  whence  knowledge 

M  2 


164     IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD. 

comes  to  the  Son  as  from  a  fountain.^^  Epp.  p.  342, 
ed.  1651. 

IT  Origen  considers  such  answer  an  economy.  He 
who  knows  what  is  in  the  heart  of  men,  Christ  Jesus, 
as  John  also  has  taught  us  in  his  Gospel,  asks,  yet  is  not 
ignorant.  But  since  He  has  now  taken  on  Him  man. 
He  adopts  all  that  is  man^s,  and  among  them  the  asking 
questions.  Nor  is  it  strange  that  the  Saviour  should 
do  so,  since  the  very  God  of  all,  accommodating  Him- 
self to  the  habits  of  man,  as  a  father  might  to  his  son, 
inquires,  for  instance,  Adam,  where  art  thou  ?  ^  and 
'  Where  is  Abel,  thy  brother  ?  '  in  Matt.  t.  10,  §  14 ; 
vid.  also  Pope  Gregory  and  Chrysost.  infr. 

^  S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Ambrose,  and  Pope  S.  Gregory 
in  addition  to  the  instances  in  Orat.  iii.  §  50,  refer  to  1 
will  go  down  now,  and  see  whether  they  have  done,  &c. 
and  if  not,  I  will  ImoiuJ'  Gen.  xviii.  21.  The  Lord 
came  down  to  see  the  city  and  the  tower,^^  &c.  Gen. 
xi.  5.  God  looked  down  from  heaven  upon  the 
children  of  men  to  see,^^  &c.  Ps.  liii.  §  3.  It  may  he 
they  will  reverence  My  Son.^^  Matt.  xxi.  37.  Luke 
XX.  13.  Seeing  a  fig  tree  afar  ofi*,  having  leaves. 
He  came,  if  haply  He  might  find/'  &c.     M^ark  xi.  13. 

Simon,  lovest  thou  Me  ?  John  xxi.  15.  Vid.  Ambros. 
de  Fid.  v.  c.  17.  Ghrys.  in  Matt.  Hom.  77,  3.  Greg. 
Epp.  X.  39.  Vid.  also  the  instances  Athan.  Orat.  iii.  §  37. 
Other  passages  may  be  added,  such  as  Gen.  xxii.  12.  vid. 
Berti  0pp.  t.  3,  p.  42.  But  the  difficulty  of  Mar.  xiii.  32 
lies  in  its  signifying  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  the 
Father  knows  what  the  Son  knows  not.  Petavius, 
after  S.  Augustine,  meets  this  by  explaining  it  to  mean 


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD.  165 

that  our  Lord^  as  sent  from  the  Father  on  a  mission, 
was  not  to  reveal  all  things,  but  to  observe  a  silence  and 
profess  an  ignorance  on  those  points  which  it  was 
not  good  for  His  brethren  to  know.  As  Mediator  and 
Prophet  He  was  ignorant.  He  refers  in  illustration  of 
this  view  to  such  texts  as,  I  have  not  spoJcen  of  My- 
self; but  the  Father  which  sent  Me,  He  gave  Me  com- 
mandment what  I  should  say  and  ivhat  I  should  speak. 
.  .  .  .  Whatsoever  I  speak  therefore,  even  as  the  Father 
said  unto  Me,  so  I  speak.^^  John  xii.  49,  50. 

^  It  is  a  question  to  be  decided,  whether  our  Lord 
speaks  of  actual  ignorance  in  His  human  Mind  or  of  the 
natural  ignorance  of  that  Mind  considered  as  human ; 
ignorance  in  or  ex  natura ;  or,  which  comes  to 
the  same  thing,  whether  He  spoke  of  a  real  ignorance, 
or  of  an  economical  or  professed  ignorance,  in  a  certain 
view  of  His  incarnation  or  office,  as  when  He  asked. 

How  many  loaves  have  ye  ?  when  He  Himself 
knew  what  He  would  do,^^  or  as  He  is  called  sin,  though 
sinless.  Thus  Ath.  seems,  Orat  ii.  §  55  fin.,  to  make 
His  infirmities  altogether  impptative,  not  real;  He 
is  said  to  be  infirm,  not  being  infirm  Himself,^''  as  if 
showing  that  the  subject  had  not  in  his  day  been 
thoroughly  worked  out.  In  like  manner  S.  Hilary, 
who,  if  the  passage  be  genuine,  states  so  clearly 
our  Lord^s  ignorance,  de  Trin.  ix.  fin.,  yet,  as  Peta- 
vius  observes,  seems  elsewhere  to  deny  to  Him  those 
very  a-fiFections  of  the  flesh  to  which  he  has  there 
paralleled  it.  And  this  view  of  Athan.^s  meaning 
is  favoured  by  the  turn  of  his  expressions.  He  says, 
such  a  defect  belongs  to    tliat  liMiuan  nature  whose  pro- 


166     IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD. 

perty  it  is  to  be  ignorant ;  Orat.  iii.  §  43 ;  that  since 
He  was  made  man.  He  is  not  ashamed,  because  of  the 
flesh  which  is  ignorant,  to  say  '  I  know  not ;  ^  ibid. 
And  §  45,  that  as  shoiuing  His  manhood,  in  that  to  be 
ignorant  is  ^proper  to  man,  and  that  He  had  put  on  a 
flesh  that  was  ignorant,  being  in  which,  He  said  accord- 
ing to  the  flesh,  know  not;^^^  ^^that  He  might 
show  that  as  man  He  knows  not,^^  §  46 ;  viz.  as  man, 
(i.e.  on  the  ground  of  being  man,  not  in  the  capacity 
of  man,)  He  knows  not,^''  ibid. ;  and  that  He  aslts 
about  Lazarus  humanly,^^  even  when  He  was  on  His 
way  to  raise  him,^^  which  implied  surely  knowledge  in 
His  human  nature.  The  reference  to  the  parallel  of 
S.  PauPs  professed  ignorance  when  he  really  knew, 
§  47,  leads  us  to  the  same  suspicion.  And  so,  ^^for 
our  profit,  as  I  think,  did  He  this.^^  §  48 — 50. 

The  natural  want  of  precision  on  such  questions  in  the 
early  ages  was  shown  or  fostered  by  such  words  as 
ol/covofjLL/cw,  which,  in  respect  of  this  very  text,  is  used 
by  S.  Basil  to  denote  both  our  Lord^s  Incarnation,  Ep. 
236,  1  fin.,  and  His  gracious  accommodation  of  Himself 
and  His  truth,  Ep.  8,  6 ;  and  with  the  like  variety  of 
meaning,  with  reference  to  the  same  text,  by  Cyril. 
Trin.  p.  623;  and  Thesaur.  p.  224.  (And  the  word 
dispensatio  in  like  manner^  Ben.  note  on  Hil.  Trin, 
X.  8.)  In  the  latter  Ep.  S.  Basil  suggests  that  our 
Lord  economises  by  a  feigned  ignorance.''^  And  S. 
Cyril,  in  Thesaur.  1.  c.  (in  spite  of  his  strong  language 
ibid.  p.  221),  *^The  Son  knows  all  things,  though 
economically  He  says  He  is  ignorant  of  something,^^ 
Thesaur.  p.  224.    And  even  in  de  Trin.  vi.  he  seems 


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD.  167 


to  recognise  the  distinction  laid  down  just  now  between 
the  natural  and  actual  state  of  our  Lord^s  humanity  : 
God  would  not  make  it  known  even  to  the  Son  Him- 
self^ were  He  a  mere  man  upon  earth,  as  they  say,  and 
not  having  it  in  His  nature  to  be  God/^  p.  629.  And 
S.  Hilary  arguing  that  He  must  as  man  know  the  day  of 
judgment,  for  His  then  coming  is  as  man,  says,  Since 
He  is  Himself  a  sacrament,  let  us  see  whether  He  be 
ignorant  in  the  things  which  He  knows  not.  For  if 
in  the  other  respects  a  profession  of  ignorance  is  not 
an  intimation  of  not  knowing,  so  here  too  He  is  not 
ignorant  of  what  He  knows  not.  For  since  His  igno- 
rance, in  respect  that  all  treasures  of  knowledge  lie  hid 
in  Him,  is  rather  an  economy  (dispensation)  than  an 
ignorance,  you  have  a  cause  why  He  might  be  ignorant 
without  an  actual  intimation  of  not  knowing."^^  Trin.  ix. 
62.  And  he  gives  reasons  why  He  professed  ignorance, 
n.  67,  viz.  as  S.  Austin  words  it,  Christum  se  dixisse 
nescientem,  in  quo  alios  facit  occultando  nescientes.^^ 
Ep.  180.  3.  S.  Austin  follows  Hilary,  saying,  Hoc 
nescit  quod  nescientes  facit.'^  Trin.  i.  n.  23.  Pope  Gre- 
gory says  that  the  text  is  most  certainly  to  be  referred 
to  the  Son  not  as  He  is  Head,  but  as  to  His  body  which 
we  are."  Ep.  x.  39.  And  S.  Ambrose  distinctly  :  The 
Son  which  took  on  Him  the  flesh,  assumed  our  aff*ec- 
tions,  so  as  to  say  that  He  knew  not  with  our  ignorance ; 
not  that  He  was  ignorant  of  anything  Himself,  for, 
though  He  seemed  to  be  man  in  truth  of  body,  yet  He 
was  the  life  and  light,  and  virtue  went  out  of  Him,*'  &c. 
de  Fid.  v.  222.  And  so  Ca^sarius,  Qu.  20.  and  Photius 
Epp.  p.  336,  &;c.  Chrysost.  in  Matth.  Hom.  77,  3.  Theo- 


168     IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD. 


doret^  however^  but  in  controversy^  is  very  severe  on 
tlie  principle  of  Economy.  "  If  He  knew  tlie  day,  and 
wishing  to  conceal  it,  said  He  was  ignorant,  see  what 
a  blasphemy  is  the  result.  Truth  tells  an  untruth.-'^ 
1.  c.  pp.  23,  24. 

IT  The  expression,  Orat.  iii.  §  48,  &c.  for  our  sake,^^ 
which  repeatedly  occurs,  surely  implies  that  there  was 
something  economical  in  our  Lord^s  profession  of  igno- 
rance. He  used  it  with  a  purpose,  not  as  a  mere  plain 
fact  or  doctrine.  And  so  S.  Cyril,  He  says  that  He 
is  ignorant,  for  our  sake  and  among  us,  as  man,^^ 
Thes.  p.  221  :  economically  effecting,  oI/covo/jlcop, 
something  profitable  and  good.^^  ibid.  And  again, 
after  stating  that  there  was  an  objection,  and  parallel- 
ing His  words  with  His  question  to  S.  Philip  about  the 
loaves,  he  says,  Knowing  as  God  the  Word,  He  cariy 
as  man,  be  ignorant. p.  223.  ^^Itis  not  a  sign  of 
ignorance,  but  of  wisdom,  for  it  was  inexpedient  that 
we  should  know  it.^^  Ambros.  de  Fid.  v.  209.  S. 
Chrysostom  seems  to  say  the  same,  denying  that  the 
Son  was  ignorant,  Hom.  77,  1.  And  Theophylact, 
^^Had  He  said,  know,  but  I  will  not  tell  you,^  they 
had  been  cast  down,  as  if  despised  by  Him ;  but  now 
in  saying  ^  not  the  Son  but  the  Father  only,^  He  hinders 
their  asking  ....  for  how  can  the  Son  be  ignorant 
of  the  day  ?  Theophyl.  in  loc.  Matt.  Often  Httle 
children  see  their  fathers  holding  something  in  their 
hands,  and  ask  for  it,  but  they  will  not  give  it.  Then 
the  children  cry  as  not  receiving  it.  At  length  the 
fathers  hide  what  they  have  got  and  show  their  empty 
hands  to  their  children,  and  so  stop  their  crying  


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD.  169 


For  our  profit  hath  He  hid  it/^  ibid,  in  loc.  Marc. 

For  thee  He  is  ignorant  of  the  hour  and  day  of  judg- 
ment^ though  nothiug  is  hid  from  the  Very  Wisdom. 
.  .  .  .  But  He  economises  this  because  of  thy  infir- 
mity/^ &c.  supr.  Basil,  Ep.  8,  6. 

It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  that  Christ,  as  man, 
was  perfect  in  knowledge  from  the  first,  as  if  ignorance 
were  hardly  separable  from  sin,  and  were  the  direct 
consequence  or  accompaniment  of  original  sin.  That 
ignorance/^  says  S.  Austin,  I  in  nowise  can  suppose 
existed  in  that  Infant,  in  whom  the  Word  was  made 
flesh  to  dwell  among  us ;  nor  cau  I  suppose  that  that 
infirmity  of  the  mind  belonged  to  Christ  as  a  babe, 
which  we  see  in  babes.  For  in  consequence  of  it, 
when  they  are  troubled  with  irrational  emotions,  no 
reason,  no  command,  but  pain  sometimes  and  the 
alarm  of  pain  restrains  them/^  &c.  de  Pecc.  Mer.  ii.  48. 

^  As  to  the  limits  of  Christ^s  perfect  knowledge  as 
man,  we  must  consider  that  the  soul  of  Christ  knew  all 
things  that  are  or  ever  will  be  or  ever  have  been,  but 
not  what  are  only  in  ]^)Osse,  not  in  fact.'^  Petav.  Incarn. 
xi.  3,  6. 

T[  Leporius,  in  his  Retractation,  which  S.  Augustine 
subscribed,  writes,  That  I  may  in  this  respect  also 
leave  nothing  to  be  cause  of  suspicion  to  any  one,  I 
then  said,  nay  I  answered  when  it  was  put  to  me,  that 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  was  ignorant  as  He  was  man 
(secundum  hominem).  But  ]iow  not  only  do  I  nob 
presume  to  say  so,  but  I  even  anathematise  my  former 
opinion  expressed  on  this  point,  because  it  may  not  bo 
said,  that  the  Lord  of  the  Prophets  was  ignorant  even 


170     IGNOEANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD. 

as  He  was  man/^  ap.  Sirmond.  t.  i.  p.  210.  A  subdivi- 
sion also  of  the  Eufcychians  were  called  by  the  name  of 
Agnoetae  from  their  holding  that  our  Lord  was  ignorant 
of  the  day  of  judgment.  ^*  They  said/^  says  Leontius, 
^^that  He  was  ignorant  of  it^  as  we  say  that  He  un- 
derwent toil."*^  de  Sect.  5  circ.  fin.  Felix  of  Urgela 
held  the  same  doctrine  according  to  Agobard^s 
testimony,  as  contained  adv.  Fel.  6,  Bibl.  Patr.  Max. 
t.  xiv.  p.  244.  The  Ed.  Ben.  observes,  Ath.  Orat.  iii. 
§  44,  that  the  assertion  of  our  Lord^s  ignorance  seems 
to  have  been  condemned  in  no  one  in  ancient  times, 
unless  joined  to  other  error.^^  And  Petavius,  after 
drawing  out  the  authorities  for  and  against  it,  says. 

Of  these  two  opinions,  the  latter,  which  is  now 
received  both  by  custom  and  by  the  agreement  of 
divines,  is  deservedly  preferred  to  the  former.  For  it 
is  more  agreeable  to  Christ^s  dignity,  and  more  befitting 
His  character  and  office  of  Mediator  and  Head,  that  is. 
Fountain  of  all  grace  and  wisdom,  and  moreover  of 
Judge,  who  is  concerned  in  knowing  the  time  fixed  for 
exercising  that  function.  In  consequence,  the  former 
opinion,  though  formerly  it  received  the  countenance  of 
some  men  of  high  eminence,  was  afterwards  marked  as 
a  heresy. Incarn.,  xi.  1.  §  15. 

IT  The  mode  in  which  Athan.  expresses  himself,  is  as 
if  he  only  ascribed  apparent  ignorance  to  our  Lord^s 
soul,  and  not  certainly  in  the  broad  sense  in  which  here- 
tics have  done  so : — as  Leontius,  e.  g.  reports  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia,  that  he  considered  Christ  ^^to  be  ignorant 
so  far,  as  not  to  know,  when  He  was  tempted,  who 
tempted  Him ;     contr.  Nest.  iii.  (Canis.  t.  i.  p.  579,) 


IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD.  171 

and  Agobard  of  Felix  the  Adoptionist  that  he  held 
Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  according  to  the  flesh  truly  to 
have  been  ignorant  of  the  sepulchre  of  Lazarus^  when 
He  said  to  his  sisters,  '  Where  have  ye  laid  him  ?  ^ 
and  was  t7'idy  ignorant  of  the  day  of  judgment  j  and 
was  truly  ignorant  what  the  two  disciples  were  saying 
as  they  walked  by  the  way,  of  what  had  been  done  at 
Jerusalem ;  and  was  trolly  ignorant  whether  He  was 
more  loved  by  Peter  than  by  the  other  disciples,  when 
He  said,  ^  Simon  Peter,  lovest  thou  Me  more  than 
these?'''  Bibl.  Patr.  Max.  t.  xiv.  p.  244.  The 
Agnoetae  have  been  noticed  above. 

^  It  is  remarkable,  considering  the  tone  of  his 
statements,  Orat.  iii.  §  42 — 53,  that  there  and  in  what 
follows  upon  them,  Athan.  should  resolve  our  Lord's 
advance  in  wisdom  merely  into  its  gradual  mani- 
festation through  the  flesh ;  and  it  increases  the 
proof  that  his  statements  are  not  to  be  taken  in  the 
letter,  and  as  if  fully  brought  out  and  settled. 
Naz.  says  the  same,  Ep.  ad  Cled.  101,  p.  86,  which 
is  the  more  remarkable  since  he  is  chiefly  writing 
against  the  ApoUinarians,  who  considered  a  ^avepaycrc^; 
the  great  end  of  our  Lord's  coming;  and  Cyril,  c. 
Nest.  iii.  p.  87.  Theod.  H^r.  v.  13.  On  the  other 
hand,  S.  Epiphanius  speaks  of  Him  as  growing  in 
wisdom  as  man.  Haer.  77,  pp.  1019-24,  and  S.  Ambrose, 
Incarn.  71 — 74.  Vid.  however  Ambr.  de  Fid.  as  quoted 
supr.  p.  167.  The  Ed.  Ben.  in  Ambr.  Incarn.  con- 
siders the  advancement  of  knowledge  spoken  of  to 
be  that  of  the  scientia  experimentalis  "  alluded  to  in 
Hebr.  v.  8,  which  is  one  of  the  three  kinds  of  know- 


172     IGNORANCE  ASSUMED  ECONOMICALLY  BY  OUR  LORD. 


ledge  possessed  by  Christ  as  man.  vid.  Berfci  0pp.  t.  3, 
p.  41.  Petavius,  however,  omits  the  consideration  of 
this  knowledge,  (which  S.  Thomas  at  first  denied  in  our 
Lord,  and  in  his  Summa  ascribes  to  Him,)  as  lying  be- 
yond his  province.  De  hac  lite  neutram  in  partem 
pronuntiare  audeo,^^  says  Petavius,  hujusmodi  enim 
quasstiones  ad  Scholas  relegandas  sunt ;  de  quibus 
nihil  apad  antiques  liquidi  ac  definiti  reperitur.^^ 
Incarn.  xi.  4^  §  9. 


ILLUSTEATIONS. 


173 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


%  ^^Is  there  any  cause  of  fear/^  says  Athan.,  ^Mest^  be- 
cause the  offspring  from  men  are  one  in  substance,  the 
Son,  by  being  called  One  in  substance,  be  Himself  con- 
sidered as  a  human  offspring  too  ?  perish  the  thought ! 
not  so  j  but  the  explanation  is  easy.  For  the  Son  is 
the  Father^s  Word  and  Wisdom ;  whence  we  learn  the 
impassibility  [airaOh)  and  indivisibility  {dfjuepLarov)  of 
such  a  generation  from  the  Father.  For  not  even 
is  man^s  word  part  of  him,  nor  proceeds  from  him 
according  to  passion ;  much  less  God^s  Word ;  whom 
the  Father  has  declared  to  be  His  own  Son  :  lest^  on  the 
other  hand,  if  we  merely  heard  of  ^  Word,^  we  should 
suppose  Him,  such  as  is  the  word  of  man,  unsubsistent 
{dvvTroararov) ;  therefore  we  are  told  that  He  is  Son, 
that  we  may  acknowledge  Him  to  be  a  living  Word 
and  a  substantive  [evovcnov)  Wisdom.  Accordingly  as 
in  saying  ^  Offspring,^  we  have  no  human  thoughts, 
and,  though  we  know  God  to  be  a  Father,  we  enter- 
tain no  material  ideas  concercing  Him,  but  while  we 
listen  to  these  illustrations  and  terms,  we  think  suitably 
of  God,  for  He  is  not  as  man,  so  in  like  manner,  when 
we  hear  of  ^  consubstantial,'  we  ought  to  transcend 
all  sense,  and,  according  to  the  Proverb,  understand  hij 
the  understanding  that  is  set  before  us ;  so  as  to  know, 
that  not  by  the  Father's  will,  but  in  eternal  truth,  is 


174 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


He  genuine  Son  of  tlie  Father,  as  Life  from  Fountain, 
and  Radiance  from  Light.  Else  why  should  we  un- 
derstand ^Offspring'  and  ^  Son/  in  no  corporeal 
way,  while  we  conceive  of  ^  One  in  substance  ^  as 
after  the  manner  of  bodies  ?  especially  since  these 
terms  are  not  here  used  about  different  subjects,  but 
of  whom  ^ offspring^  is  predicated,  of  Him  is  predi- 
cated ^one  in  substance  also.^     Syn.  §  41,  42. 

For  whereas  men  beget  with  passion,  so  again  when 
at  work  they  work  upon  an  existing  subject  matter, 
and  otherwise  cannot  make.  Now  if  we  do  not  under- 
stand creation  in  a  human  way,  when  we  attribute  it 
to  God,  much  less  seemly  is  it  to  understand  gene- 
ration in  a  human  way,  or  to  give  a  corporeal  sense  to 
Consubstantial ;  instead,  as  we  ought,  of  receding  from 
things  generate,  casting  away  human  images,  nay,  all 
things  sensible,  and  ascending  to  the  Father,  lest  in 
ignorance  we  rob  the  Father  of  the  Son  and  rank 
Him  among  His  own  creatures/^  Syn.  §  51. 

^  S.  Athanasius^s  doctrine  is,  that,  God  containing 
in  Himself  all  perfection,  whatever  is  excellent  in  one 
created  thing  above  another,  is  found  in  its  perfection 
in  Him.  If  then  such  generation  as  radiance  from 
light  is  more  perfect  than  that  of  children  from  parents, 
that  belongs,  and  transcendently,  to  the  All-perfect 
God. 

IT  The  question  is  not,  whether  in  matter  of  fact,  in 
the  particular  case,  the  rays  would  issue  after,  and  not 
with,  the  initial  existence  of  the  laminous  body ;  for  the 
illustration  is  not  used  to  show  how  such  a  thing  may 
be,  or  to  give  an  instance  of  it,  but  to  convey  to  the 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


175 


mind  a  correct  idea  of  what  it  is  proposed  to  teach  in 
the  Catholic  doctrine. 

%  Athanasius  guards  against  what  is  defective  in  his 
illustration^  Orat.  iii.  §  5,  (e  g.  of  an  Emperor  and  his 
image^)  but^  even  independent  of  such  explanation,  a 
mistake  as  to  his  meaning  would  be  impossible ;  and 
the  passage  affords  a  good  instance  of  the  imperfect  and 
partial  character  of  all  illustrations  of  the  Divine 
Mystery.  What  it  is  taken  to  symbolise  is  the  unity  of 
the  Father  and  Son,  (for  the  Image  is  not  a  Second 
Emperor  but  the  same,  vid.  Sabell.  Greg.  6,)  still  no 
one  who  bowed  before  the  Emperor^s  Statue  can  be 
supposed  to  have  really  worshipped  it ;  whereas  our 
Lord  is  the  Object  of  supreme  worship,  which  termi- 
nates in  Him,  as  being  really  one  with  Him  whose 
Image  He  is. 

^  Whoso  uses  the  particle  as^  implies,  not  identity, 
nor  equality,  but  a  likeness  of  the  matter  in  question, 
viewed  in  a  certain  respect.  This  we  may  learn  from 
our  Saviour  Himself,  when  He  says  ^As  Jonas,^^^  &c. 
Orat.  iii.  22.  23.  Even  when  the  analogy  is  solid  and 
well  founded/'  says  a  Protestant  writer,  ^^we  are  liable 
to  fall  into  error,  if  we  suppose  it  to  extend  farther  than 

it  really  does   Thus  because  a  just  analogy  has 

been  discerned  between  the  metropolis  of  a  country, 
and  the  heart  in  the  animal  body,  it  has  been  sometimes 
contended  that  its  increased  size  is  a  disease,  that  it  may 
impede  some  of  its  most  important  functions,  or  even  be 
the  means  of  its  dissolution.'''  Copleston  on  Predesti- 
nation, p.  129.  The  principle  here  laid  down,  in  accord- 
ance with  S.  Athan.,  of  course  admits  of  being  made  an 


176 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


excuse  for  denying  the  orthodox  meaning  of  Word, 
Wisdom,  &c./^  under  pretence  that  the  figurative  terms 
are  not  confined  by  the  Church  within  their  proper 
limits ;  but  here  the  question  is  about  the  matter  of 
fact,  which  interpretation  is  right,  the  Church's  or  the 
objector's  ?  Thus  another  writer  says,  The  most 
important  words  of  the  N.  T.  have  not  only  received  an 
indelibly  false  stamp  from  the  hands  of  the  old  School- 
men, but  those  words  having,  since  the  Reformation, 
become  common  property  in  the  language  of  the 
country,  are,  as  it  were,  thickly  in  crusted  with  the 

most  vague,  incorrect,  and  vulgar  notions  Any 

word  ....  if  habitually  repeated  in  connection  with 
certain  notions,  will  appear  to  reject  all  other  signi- 
fications, as  it  were,  by  a  natural  power.^^  Heresy  and 
Orthod.  pp.  21,  47.  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  words 
which  were  used  in  a  language  now  dead  to  represent 
objects  ....  which  are  now  supposed  to  express 
figuratively  something  spiritual  and  quite  beyond  the 
knowledge  and  comprehension  of  man.''^  P.  96.  Of 
course  Athan.  assumes  that,  since  the  figures  and 
parallels  given  us  in  Scripture  have  but  a  partial 
application,  therefore  there  is  given  us  from  above 
also  an  interpreter  in  order  to  apply  them.  Vid.  art. 
Uconomical, 

^  Again,  just  as  S.  Athan.  says,  A  figure  is  but  a 
parallel,  .  .  hence  if  we  too  become  one,  as  the  Son  in 
the  Father,  we  shall  not  therefore  be  as  the  Son,  nor 
equal  to  Him,  for  He  and  we  are  but  parallel,^^  so 
again  Dr.  Copleston  thus  proceeds,  Analogy  does  not 
mean  the  similarity  of  two  things,  but  the  similarity 


ILLUSTRATIONS. 


177 


or  sameness  of  two   relations  Things  most 

unlike  and  discordant  in  their  nature  may  be  strictly 
analogous  to  one  another.  Thus  a  certain  pro- 
jposition  may  be  called  the  hasis  of  a  system  .  .  .  . 
it  serves  a  similar  office  and  purpose  ....  the  system 
rests  upon  it ;  it  is  useless  to  proceed  with  the  argument 
till  this  is  well  established  :  if  this  were  removedy  the 
system  must  fall.'^    On  Predest.  pp.  122,  123. 


VOL.  II. 


N 


178 


IMAGE. 


IMAGE 

Is  used  to  signify  our  Lord's  relation  to  the  Eternal 
Father  :  and  first  in  Scripture^ — 

1.  We  find  Him  called  eU(ov,  imago^  in  2  Cor.  iv.  4; 
and  Col.  i.  15.  In  a  verse  following  the  former  of 
these  passages  it  is  said  in  like  manner  that  the  glory 
of  God  is  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  carries  us 
to  Heb.  i.  3,  where  we  read  of  Him  as  the  airav^aaiia 
of  God's  glory,  and  find  in  the  word  ')(apaKT7)p,  figura, 
impress,  a  synonym  for  the  word  Image,  St.  John 
confirms  St.  Paul;   he  speaks  of  our  Lord's  glory 

quasi  Unigeniti  a  Patre/'  and  says  that  the  Son  who 
is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  hath  declared  Him." 

These  modes  of  expressing  the  nature  and  office  of 
the  Son  as  the  revealed  and  revealing  God,  as  the 
Light,  the  Glory,  the  Image,  the  Impress,  the  Face  of 
the  Almighty,  are  exemplified  with  still  greater  variety 
and  fulness  of  language  in  the  Book  of  Wisdom,  ch. 
vii.,  in  a  passage  too  long  to  quote,  in  which,  among 
other  attributes  and  prerogatives.  Wisdom,  that  is,  our 
Lord,  is  called  a  irvevfjia  ajLov,  fjbovoyevh,  (^Ckdyado^;, 
^iKdvOpcoTTO^y  the  aTTOppoia  Trj<^  rod  TrauTOKparopo^  Bo^Tjf;^ 
the  aTravjacT/jLa  (fxoro^  diSiov,  the  ecroirrpov  d/crjXLScorop 
T7]^  Tov  Oeov  ivepyeta^,  and  the  elfccov  t?}9  dyaOorrjro^; 
avTov. 

It  is  impossible  that  the  Holy  Apostles,  when  they 


IMAGE. 


179 


spoke  of  our  Lord  as  the  Word,  Image,  and  Splendour 
of  God,  should  not  have  had  in  mind  this  passage, 
so  overpowering  in  its  force  and  significance,  and 
were  not  investing  with  personality  and  substance 
what  they  thus  viewed  as  all-perfect,  immutable,  co- 
eternal,  consubstantial  with  Him. 

2.  S.  Athanasius  and  the  other  Fathers  take  up 
and  insist  upon  this  definite  theology,  thus  found  in 
Scripture. 

We  must  conceive  of  necessity,^^  says  Athan., 
that  in  the  Father  is  the  eternal,  the  everlasting,  the 
immortal ;  and  in  Him,  not  as  foreign  to  Him,  but  as 
in  a  Fount  abiding  {avaiTavoiieva)  in  Him,  and  also  in 
the  Son.  When  then  you  would  form  a  conception  of 
the  Son,  learn  what  are  the  things  in  the  Father,  and 
believe  that  they  are  in  the  Son  too.  If  the  Father  is 
creature  or  work,  these  attributes  are  also  in  the  Son, 
&c.  .  .  .  He  who  honours  the  Son,  is  honouring  the 
Father  who  sent  Him,  and  he  who  receives  the  Son,  is 
receiving  with  Him  the  Father,'^  &c.    In  illud  Omn.  4. 

As  the  Father  is  I  am  (6  mv)  so  His  Word  is  I 
Am  and  God  over  all.^^  Scrap,  i.  28.  Altogether, 
there  is  nothing  which  the  Father  has,  which  is  not  the 
Son^s ;  for  therefore  it  is  that  the  Son  is  in  the  Father, 
and  the  Father  in  the  Son ;  because  the  things  of  the 
Father,  these  are  in  the  Son,  and  still  the  same  are 
understood  as  being  in  the  Father.  Thus  is  understood, 
*  I  and  the  Father  are  One  ;  ^  since  not  these  things  are 
in  Him  and  those  in  the  Son,  but  the  things  which  are  in 
the  Father  those  are  in  the  Son,  and  what  thou  seest 
in  the  Father,  because  thou  seest  in  the  Son,  thereby  is 

N  2 


180 


IMAGE. 


rightly  understood  ^  He  tliat  hath  seen  Me,  hath  seen 
the  Father/ Serap.  ii.  2. 

Again  :  Such  as  the  parent,  such  of  necessity  is 
the  offspring ;  and  such  as  is  the  Word's  Father,  such 
must  be  also  His  Word  .  .  .  God  is  not  as  man,  as 
Scripture  has  said,  but  is  existing  [oiv  ea-Tc)  and  is 
ever,  therefore  His  Word  also  is  existing,  and  is  ever- 
lastingly with  the  Father  as  radiance  with  light.  .  .  . 
As  radiance  from  light,  so  is  He  perfect  offspring  from 
perfect.  Hence  He  is  also  God,  as  being  God's  Image.'' 
Orat.  ii.  §  35.  It  was  fitting  that,  whereas  God  is 
One,  that  His  Image  should  be  One  also,  and  His 
Word  One,  and  One  His  Wisdom. '^  Ibid.  §  36. 

%  He  is  likeness  and  image  of  the  sole  and  true 
God,  being  Himself  sole  also,*'  §  49.  /jlovo^  ev  fjb6va>j. 
Orat.  iii.  §  21.  oXo?  oXov  elKoyv,  Serap.  i.  16.  The 
Offspring  of  the  Ingenerate,"  says  S.  Hilary,  is  One 
from  One,  True  from  True,  Living  from  Living, 
Perfect  from  Perfect,  Power  of  Power,  Wisdom  of 
Wisdom,  Glory  of  Glory,"  de  Trin.  ii.  8 ;  reXeio^  Tekeiov 
^e^evvt]icevy  irvevfJLa  irveviia.    Epiph.  Haar.  Ixxvi.  p.  945. 

As  Light  from  Light,  and  Life  from  Life,  and  Good 
from  Good;  so  from  Eternal  Eternal."  Nyss.  contr. 
Eunom.  i.  p.  164.  App.  De  Deo  nascitur  Deus,  de 
Ingenito  Unigenitus,  de  Solo  Solus,  de  Toto  Totus,  de 
Vero  Verus,  de  Perfecto  Perfectus,  Totum  Patris 
habens,  nihil  derogans  Patri.'^  Zenon.  Serm.  ii.  3. 

^  A  man  will  see  the  extravagance  of  this  heresy 
still  more  clearly,  if  he  considers  that  the  Son  is  the 
Image  and  Eadiance  of  the  Father,  and  Impress 
and  Truth.    For  if,  when  Light  exists,  there  be  withal 


IMAGE. 


181 


its  Image^  viz.  Eadiance^ — and  a  Subsistence  existing, 
there  be  of  it  the  entire  Impress, — and  a  Father 
existing,  there  be  His  true  representation, — let  them 
consider  what  depths  of  impiety  they  fall  into,  who 
make  time  the  measure  of  the  Image  and  Countenance 
of  the  Godhead.  For  if  the  Son  was  not  before  His 
generation,  Truth  was  not  always  in  God,  which  it  were 
a  sin  to  say ;  for,  since  the  Father  was,  there  was  ever 
in  Him  the  Truth,  which  is  the  Son,  who  says,  /  am 
the  Truth.  And  the  Subsistence  existing,  of  course 
there  was  forthwith  its  Impress  and  Image  ;  for  God^s 
Image  is  not  delineated  from  without,  but  God  Himself 
hath  begotten  It;  in  which  seeing  Himself,  He  has 
delight,  as  the  Son  Himself  says,  I  ivas  His  delight. 
When  then  did  the  Father  not  see  Himself  in  His  own 
Image  ?  or  when  had  He  not  delight  in  Him,  that  a  man 
should  dare  to  say,  ^  The  Image  is  out  of  nothing,' 
and  ^  The  Father  had  not  delight  before  the  Image 
was  generated  ?  ^  and  how  should  the  Maker  and 
Creator  see  Himself  in  a  created  and  generated  sub- 
stance ?  for  such  as  is  the  Father,  such  must  be  the 
Image.  Proceed  we  then  to  consider  the  attributes  of 
the  Father,  and  we  shall  come  to  know  whether  this 
Image  is  really  His.  The  Father  is  eternal,  immortal, 
powerful,  light.  King,  Sovereign,  God,  Lord,  Creator, 
and  Maker.  These  attributes  must  be  in  the  Image, 
to  make  it  true,  that  lie  tJiat  hath  seen  the  Son,  Itath 
seen  the  Father.''  Orat.  i.  §  20,  21. 

^  If  God  be  ingenerate.  His  Image  is  not  generate 
[made,]  but  an  Offspring,  which  is  His  Word  and  His 
Wisdom,^^  ibid.  §  31. 


182 


IMAGE. 


^  Athan.  argues  from  the  very  name  Image  for  our 
Lord^s  eternity.  An  Image,  to  be  really  such,  must  be 
an  impress  from  the  Original,  not  an  external  and 
detached  imitation.  It  was  attempted  to  secure  this 
point  before  Nicaea  by  the  epithets  living  and  airapak^ 
XaKTo^,  unsuccessfully,  vid.  Deer.  §  20.  Thus  S.  Basil : 
"  He  is  an  Image  not  made  with  the  hand,  or  a  work  of 
art,  but  a  living  Image,^^  &c.  vid.  art.  airapoXKaiCTOv, 
also  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  16,  17.  Epiph.  Hser.  76,  3. 
Hilar.  Trin.  vii.  41  fin.  Origen  observes  that  man,  on 
the  contrary,  is  an  example  of  an  external  or  im- 
proper image  of  God.  Periarch.  i.  2,  §  6.  vid.  Theod. 
Hist.  i.  3,  pp.  737,  742. 

IT  S.  Gregory  Naz.  argues  from  the  name  of  Image 
to  our  Lord's  consubstantiality.  He  is  Image  as 
ofxoovcTLov  .  .  .  for  this  is  the  nature  of  an  image  to  be 
a  copy  of  the  archetype.^'  Orat.  30.  20. 

^  Vid.  S.  Athan.'s  doctrine  concerning  Wisdom, 
Orat.  ii.  §  80,  &c.  He  says,  Gent.  34,  ^^The  soul  as  in  a 
mirror,  contemplates  the  Word  the  Image  of  the  Father, 
and  in  Him  considers  the  Father,  whose  Image  the 
Saviour  is  ...  or  if  not  .  .  .  yet  from  the  things  that 
are  seen,  the  creation  is  such,  as  if  by  letters  signifying 
and  heralding  its  Lord  and  Maker  by  means  of  its 
order  and  harmony. And  ^^As  by  looking  up  to  the 
heaven  ...  we  have  an  idea  of  the  Word  who  set  it 
in  order,  so  considering  the  Word  of  God,  we  cannot 
but  see  God  His  Father.^'  45.  And  Incarn.  11,  41,  42, 
&c.  Yid.  also  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  16. 

^  On  the  Arian  objection,  that,  if  our  Lord  be  the 
Father's  Image,  He  ought  to  resemble  Him  in  being 


IMAGE. 


183 


a  Father,  vid.  article,  "Father  Almighty/'  The 
words  "  like  and  much  more  "  image/'  would  be  in- 
appropriate, if  the  Second  Divine  Person  in  nothing 
differed  from  the  First.  Sonship  is  just  that  one 
difference  which  allows  of  likeness  being  predicated 
of  Him. 


184 


IMPERIAL  TITLES  AND  HONOURS. 


IMPERIAL  TITLES  AND  HONOURS. 

^  EusEBius  was  emphatically  the  court  bishop^  but  he 
did  not  observe  the  ecclesiastical  rule  in  calling  Con- 
stantino ^^most  pious/^  §  14^  Lett.  App.  Deer.  most 
wise  and  most  religious/^  §  4^  most  religious/^  §  8, 
§  10.  [Nic.  n.  47,  &c.)  He  goes  in  his  Vit.  Const, 
further  than  this,  and  assigns  to  him  the  oflBce  of  deter- 
mining the  faith  (Constantino  being  as  yet  unbaptised). 
E.g.  "  When  there  were  differences  between  persons 
of  different  countries,  the  Emperor,  as  if  some  com- 
mon bishop  appointed  by  God,  convened  Councils 
of  God^s  ministers ;  and,  not  disdaining  to  be  pre- 
sent, and  to  sit  amid  their  conferences,^^  &c.  i.  44. 
When  he  came  into  the  Nicene  Council,  ^^it  was,^^ 
says  Eusebius,  as  some  heavenly  Angel  of  God,'^  iii. 
10,  alluding  to  the  brilliancy  of  the  imperial  purple. 
He  confesses,  however,  he  did  not  sit  down  until  the 
Bishops  bade  him.  Again,  at  the  same  Council,  ^^with 
pleasant  eyes,  looking  serenity  itself  into  them  all, 
collecting  himself,  and  in  a  quiet  and  gentle  voice,^^  he 
made  an  oration  to  the  Fathers  upon  peace.  Constan- 
tino had  been  an  instrument  in  conferring  such  vast 
benefits,  humanly  speaking,  on  the  Christian  body, 
that  it  is  not  wonderful  that  other  writers  of  the  day 
besides  Eusebius  should  praise  him.  Hilary  speaks 
of  him  as      of  sacred  raemory,^^    Fragm.    5,  init. 


IMPERIAL  TITLES  AND  HONOURS. 


185 


Athanasius  calls  him  most  pious/^  Apol.  contr. 
Arian.  9,  ''of  blessed  memory/'  Ep.  Mg.  18,  19. 
Epiphanius  ''most  religious  and  of  ever-blessed 
memory/'  Haer.  70,  9.  Posterity,  as  was  natural,  was 
still  more  grateful. 

^  Up  to  the  year  356,  when  Constantius  took  up  the 
Anomoeans,  this  was  Athan.'s  tone  in  speaking  of  him 
also.  In  his  Apol.  contr.  Arian.  init.  (a.d.  350,)  ad  Ep. 
2Eg,  5,  (356,)  and  his  Apol.  ad  Constant,  passim  (356,) 
he  calls  the  Emperor  most  pious,  religious,  &c.  At 
the  end  of  the  last-mentioned  work,  §  27,  the  news 
comes  to  him  while  in  exile  of  the  persecution  of  the 
Western  Bishops  and  the  measures  against  himself. 
He  still  in  the  peroration  calls  Constantius,  "  blessed 
and  divinely  favoured  Augustus,''  and  urges  on  him 
that  he  is  a  "  Christian,  ^6X6%pt(jT09,  Emperor."  Vid. 
supr.  art.  Athanasius. 

IT  The  honour  paid  to  the  Imperial  Statues  is  well 
known.  "  He  who  crowns  the  Statue  of  the  Emperor 
of  course  honours  him  whose  image  he  has  crowned." 
Ambros.  in  Psalm.  118,  x.  25.  vid.  also  Chrysost.  Horn,  on 
Statues,  Oxf.  Tr.  pp.  355,  6,&c.  Fragm.  in  Act.  Cone.  vii. 
(t.  4,  p.  89,  Hard.)  Chrysostom's  second  persecution 
arose  from  his  interfering  with  a  statue  of  the  Empress, 
which  was  so  near  the  Church  that  the  acclamations 
of  the  people  before  it  disturbed  the  services.  Socr. 
vi.  18.  The  Seventh  Council  speaks  of  the  images 
sent  by  the  Emperors  into  provinces  instead  of  tlieir 
coming  in  person;  Ducange  in  v.  Lauratum.  Vid.  a 
description  of  the  imperial  statues  and  their  honours 
in  Gothofred,  Cod.  Theod.  t.  5,  pp.  346,  347,  and  in 


186 


IMPERIAL  TITLES  AND  HONOURS. 


Philostorg.  ii.  18,  xii.  10.  vid.  also  Molanus  de  Imagi- 
nibus  ed.  Paquot,  p.  197. 

^  From  the  custom  of  paying  honour  to  the  Imperial 
Statues,  the  Cultus  Imaginum  was  introduced  into  the 
Eastern  Church.  The  Western  Church,  not  having 
had  the  civil  custom,  resisted,  vid.  Dollinger,  Church 
History,  vol.  iii.  p.  55.  E.  Tr.  Certain  Fathers,  e.g. 
S.  Jerome,  set  themselves  against  the  civil  custom,  as 
idolatrous,  comparing  it  to  that  paid  to  Nebuchad- 
nezzar^s  statue,  vid.  Hieron.  in  Dan.  iii.  18.  Incense 
was  burnt  before  those  of  the  Emperors ;  as  afterwards 
before  the  Images  of  the  Saints. 


THE  INCARNATION. 


187 


THE  INCARNATION. 

1 .  Considered  in  its  purpose. 

"^^The  need  of  man  preceded  His  becoming  man/^ 
says  Athan.,  apart  from  which  He  had  not  put  on 
flesh.  And  what  the  need  was  for  which  He  became 
man^  He  Himself  thus  signifies,  I  came  down  from 
heaven  ,  ,  .  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  Me,  And 
this  is  the  will  of  Sim  tliat  sent  Me,  that  of  all  luhich 
He  hath  given  Me,  I  should  lose  nothing ;  hut,  &c.  &c. 
(John  vi.  38 — 40),  and  again,  /  am  come  a  Light  into 
the  Worlds  &c.,  and  again,  To  this  end  loas  I  horn,  &c., 
that  I  should  hear  witness  unto  the  truth  (Johnxviii.  37), 
and  John  hath  written,  For  this  was  manifested  the  Son 
of  God,  that  He  might  destroy  the  ivories  of  the  devil 
(1  John  iii.  8).  To  give  a  witness,  then,  and  for  our 
sakes  to  undergo  death,  to  raise  men  up  and  loose  the 
works  of  the  devil,  the  Saviour  came,  and  this  is  the 
reason  of  His  Incarnate  Presence/^  Orat.  ii.  §  54. 

IT  However,  there  are  theologians  of  great  name,  who 
consider  that  the  decree  of  the  Incarnation  was  inde- 
pendent of  Adam's  fall  ;  and  certainly  by  allowing  that 
it  was  not  absolutely  necessary  (vid.  infra)  for  the  divine 
forgiveness  of  sin,  and  that  it  was  the  actual  and 
immediate  means  of  the  soul's  renewal  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  as  we  shall  see  presently,  Athan.  goes  far  towards 


188 


THE  INCARNATION. 


countenancing  that  belief.  Dico  ex  vi  prseentis 
decreti/^  says  Viva  (Curs.  Theol.  de  Incarn.  p.  74,) 
^^Adamo  non  peccante  Verbuni  fuisse  incarnatum; 
atque  adeo  motivum  Incarnationis  non  fuit  sola  re- 
demptio,  sed  etiam  et  principalius  ipsa  Christi  excel- 
lentia  ac  humanoe  naturae  exaltatio,  Ita  Scotistae, 
Suar.  Martinon.  et  alii  contra  Thomistas.  Angelicus 
vero  qu.  1  a.  3  sententiam  nostram  censet  probabilem, 
quamvis  probabiliorem  putet  oppositam/^ 

IT  It  is  the  general  teaching  of  the  Fathers  in  accord- 
ance with  Athan.,  that  our  Lord  would  not  have 
been  incarnate  had  not  man  sinned.  Our  cause  was 
the  occasion  of  His  descent,  and  our  transgression 
called  forth  the  Word^s  love  of  man.  Of  His  incarna- 
tion we  became  the  ground. Athan.  de  Incarn.  V. 
D.  4.  vid.  Thomassin,  at  great  length,  de  Incarn.  ii.  5 — 
11,  also  Petav.  de  Incarn.  ii.  17,  7 — 12.  Vasquez.  in 
3  Thom.  Disp.  x.  4  and  5. 

Without  His  sojourning  here  at  all,  Grod  was  able 
to  speak  the  word  only  and  undo  the  curse  ...»  but 
then  the  power  indeed  of  Him  who  gave  command  had 
been  shown,  but  man,  though  restored  to  what  Adam  was 
before  the  fall,  would  have  received  grace  only  from  with- 
out, not  had  it  united  to  his  body.  .  .  .  Then,  had  he 
been  again  seduced  by  the  serpent,  a  second  need  had 
arisen  of  God^s  commanding  and  undoing  the  curse; 
and  this  had  gone  on  without  limit,  and  men  had  re- 
mained under  guilt  just  as  before,  being  in  slavery  to 
sin  j  and  ever  sinning,  they  had  ever  needed  pardon, 
and  never  been  made  free,  being  in  themselves  carnal, 
and  ever  defeated  by  the  Law  by  reason  of  the  infirmity 


THE  INCARNATION. 


189 


of  the  flesh/^  Orat.  ii.  68.  And  so  in  Incarn.  7^  lie 
says  that  repentance  might  have  been  pertinent^  had 
man  merely  offended^  without  corruption  following 
(supra  Freedom),  vid.  also  14.  Athan.  is  supported 
by  Naz.  Orat.  19.  13;  Theod.  adv.  Gent.  vi.  p.  876-7. 
Aug.  de  Trin.  xiii.  13.  The  contrary  view  is  taken 
by  St.  Anselm^  but  St.  Thomas  and  the  Schoolmen 
side  with  the  Fathers,    vid.  Petav.  Incarn.  ii.  13. 

%  On  the  subject  of  God^s  power,  as  contrasted 
with  His  acts,  vid.  Petav.  de  Deo,  v.  6. 

IT  There  were  two  reasons  then  for  the  Incarnation, 
viz.  atonement  for  sin,  and  renewal  in  holiness,  and  these 
are  ordinarily  associated  with  each  other  by  Athanasius. 

These  two  ends  of  our  Lord's  Incarnation,  that  He 
might  die  for  us,  and  that  He  might  renew  us,  answer 
nearly  to  those  specified  in  Rom.  iv.  25,  who  was 
delivered  for  our  offences  and  raised  again  for  our 
justification.''^  The  general  object  of  His  coming,  in- 
cluding both  of  these,  is  treated  of  by  Athanasius  in 
Incarn.  4 — 20,  or  rather  in  the  whole  Tract,  and  in  the 
two  books  against  Apollinaris.  It  is  difficult  to  make  ac- 
curate references  under  the  former  head,  (vid.  supr.  art. 
Atonement,)  without  including  the  latter.  Since  all 
men  had  to  pay  the  debt  of  death,  on  which  account 
especially  He  came  on  earth,  therefore  after  giving 
proofs  of  His  Divinity  from  His  works,  next  He  off*ered 
a  sacrifice  for  all,^^  &c.,  and  then  the  passage  runs  on 
into  the  other  fruit  of  His  death.  Incarn.  20.  Vid.  alsa 
Orat.  ii.  §  7 — 9,  where  he  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  offer- 
ing Himself,  as  off'ering  His  flesh  to  God ;  also  Deer, 
§  14.     And  Orat.  iv.  §  G,  he  says,     When  He  is  said 


190 


THE  INCARNATION. 


to  hunger,  to  weep  and  weary,  and  to  cry  Eloi,  which 
are  human  affections,  He  receives  them  from  us  and 
offers  to  His  Father,  interceding  for  us,  that  in 
Him  they  may  be  annulled/^     And  so  Theodoret, 

Whereas  He  had  an  immortal  nature,  He  willed  ac- 
cording to  the  law  of  equity  to  put  a  stop  to  death^s 
power,  taking  first  on  Himself  from  those  who  were  ex- 
posed to  death  a  first-fruit ;  and,  preserving  this  nature 
immaculate  and  guiltless  of  sin.  He  surrenders  it  for 
death  to  seize  upon  as  well  as  upon  others,  and  to  satiate 
its  insatiableness;  and  then  on  the  ground  of  its  want  of 
equity  against  that  first-fruit,  He  put  a  stop  to  its  iniqui- 
tous tyranny  over  others/^  Eran.  iii.  p.  196,  7.  Vigil. 
Thaps.  contr.  Eutych.  i.  §  9,  p.  496  (Bibl.  Patr.  ed.  1624). 

And  S.  Leo  speaks  of  the  whole  course  of  redemption, 
i.e.  incarnation,  atonement,  regeneration,  justification, 
&c.,  as  one  sacrament,  not  drawing  the  line  distinctly 
between  the  several  agents,  elements,  or  stages  in  it,  but 
considering  it  to  lie  in  the  intercommunion  of  Christ^s 
person  and  ours.  Thus  he  says  that  our  Lord  took 
on  Him  all  our  infirmities  which  come  of  sin  without 
sin ;     and     the  most  cruel  pains  and  death/^  because 

none  could  be  rescued  from  mortality,  unless  He,  in 
whom  our  common  nature  was  innocent,  allowed  Him- 
self to  die  by  the  hands  of  the  impious  ;  *^  unde,^^  he 
continues,  in  se  credentibus  et  sacmmentum  condidit 
et  exemplum,  ut  unum  apprehenderent  renascendoy  al- 
teram sequerentur  imitando.^^  Serm.  63,  4.  He  speaks 
of  His  fortifying  us  against  our  passions  and  infirmi- 
ties, both  Sacramento  susceptionis  and  exemplo."*' 
Serm.  65,  2,  and  of  a    duplex  remedium  cujus  aliud  in 


THE  INCAENATION. 


191 


Sacramento y  aliud  in  exemplo/^  Serm.  67,  5,  also  69,  5. 
Elsewhere  lie  makes  the  strong  statement,  The 
Lord^s  passion  is  continued  on  [producitur]  even  to 
the  end  of  the  world ;  and  as  in  His  Saints  He  is 
honoured  Himself,  and  Himself  is  loved,  and  in  the 
poor  He  Himself  is  fed,  is  clothed  Himself,  so  in  all  who 
endure  trouble  for  righteousness^  sake,  does  He  Him- 
self suffer  together  [compatitur],^^  Serm.  70,  5.  vid. 
also  more  or  less  in  Serm.  pp.  76,  93,  98,  99,  141,  249, 
257,  258,  271,  fin.  and  Epist.  pp.  1291,  1363,  1364.  At 
other  times,  however,  the  atonement  is  more  distinctly 
separated  from  its  circumstances,  pp.  136,  198,  310; 
but  it  is  very  diflBcult  to  draw  the  line.  The  tone  of 
his  teaching  is  throughout  characteristic  of  the 
Fathers,  and  very  like  that  of  S.  Athanasius.  vid.  arts. 
Atonement  and  Freedom, 

2.  Considered  in  itself. 

The  Two  natures,  the  divine  and  human,  both  perfect, 
though  remaining  distinct,  are  in  the  Christ  intimately 
and  for  ever  one. 

Two  natures,^^  says  S.  Leo,  met  together  in  our 
Redeemer,  and,  while  what  belonged  to  each  remained, 
so  great  a  unity  was  made  of  either  substance,  that  from 
the  time  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh  in  the  Blessed 
Virgin's  womb,  we  may  neither  think  of  Him  as  God 
without  that  which  is  man,  nor  as  man  without  that 
which  is  God,^^  &c.    Vid.  art.  Two  Natures, 

IT  And  the  principle  of  unity,  viz.  that  in  which  they 
were  united,  was  the  Person  of  the  Son.     From  this 


192 


THE  INCARNATION. 


unity  of  Person  it  comes  to  pass,  first,  tliat  one  and  the 
same  act  on  the  part  of  our  Lord  may  be  both  divine 
and  human ;  (e.g.  His  curing  with  a  touch,  this  is  called 
the  OeavBpLKr)  ivepjeta;)  and  secondly,  that  the  acts  and 
attributes  of  one  nature  may  safely  be  ascribed  as  per- 
sonal to  the  other ;  this  is  called  the  avrihoa-i^  ISLco/jbdrcov. 
Thus  it  is  true  that  the  Creator  is  the  Lamb  of  God,^^ 
though  there  can  be  no  intrinsic  union  of  attribute  or 
act  in  Him  who  both  in  the  beginning  created  and  in 
the  fulness  of  time  suffered. 

That  Person  which  our  Lord  is  after  the  Incarnation, 
He  was  before ;  His  human  nature  is  not  a  separate 
being  ;  that  is  the  heresy  of  the  Nestorians.  vid.  Unity, 
&c.  It  has  no  personality  belonging  to  it ;  but  that 
human  nature,  though  perfect  as  a  nature,  lives  in  and 
belongs  to  and  is  possessed  by  Him,  the  second  Person 
of  the  Trinity,  as  an  attribute  or  organ  or  inseparable 
accident  of  being,  not  as  what  is  substantive,  inde- 
pendent, or  co-ordinate.  Vid.  articles  opyavov  and 
irapaTreraa/jLa, 

%  Personality  is  not  necessary  in  order  to  a  nature 
being  perfect,  as  we  see  in  the  case  of  brute  animals. 

IT  Nothing  then  follows  from  the  union  of  the  two 
natures,  which  circumscribes  or  limits  the  Divine  Son ; 
so  to  teach  was  the  heresy  of  the  Monophysites,  who 
held  that  the  Divinity  and  Manhood  of  Christ  made 
up  together  one  nature,  as  soul  and  body  in  man  are  one 
compound  nature ;  from  which  it  follows  that  neither 
of  them  is  perfect.    Vid.  article  Mia  (f>vaL<;. 


THE  DIVINE  INDWELLING. 


193 


THE  DIVINE  INDWELLING. 

Our  Lord,  by  becoming  man,  has  found  a  way 
whereby  to  sanctify  that  nature,  of  which  His  own 
manhood  is  the  pattern  specimen.  He  inhabits  us 
personally,  and  this  inhabitation  is  effected  by  the 
channel  of  the  Sacraments. 

Since  the  Word  bore  our  body,^^  says  Athanasius, 
^^and  came  to  be  in  us  {yiyovev),  therefore,  by  reason 
of  the  Word  in  us,  is  God  called  our  Father.^^ 
Deer.  §  3L  Yid.  rov  iv  rj/jbtv  vlov.  Orat.  ii.  §  59,  o 
\6yo^  060^  iv  aapfcl  .  .  .  evefca  rov  ayiafyLV  T7]v  adp/ca 
jiyovev  avOpcDiro^.  ibid.  §  10,  also  §  56,  and  rov  iv  avrol^ 
ol/covvra  \6yov,  §  61.  Also  Orat  i.  §  50,  iii.  23 — 25, 
iv.  §  21.  We  rise  from  the  earth,  the  curse  of  sin 
being  removed,  because  of  Him  who  is  in  us,^^ 
iii.  §  33. 

^  In  thus  teaching  Athan.  follows  the  language  of 
Scripture,  in  which  iv  means  in  our  nature,  though 
sometimes  among  us;  vid.  ovrco^  iv  rjfuv  6eo^,  1  Cor.  xiv. 
25.  iv  ifjboly  Gal.  i.  24.  eWo9  vfjicov,  Luke  xvii.  21, 
ia-K7]vcoa€v  iv  rj/jblv^  John  i.  14  ;  also  xiv.  17,  23 ;  1  Cor. 
vi.  20 ;  1  John  iii.  24,  &c. 

By  this  indwelling  our  Lord  is  the  immediate  a/o%^ 
of  spiritual  life  to  each  of  His  elect  individually. 
Ovfc  6  X670?  iarlv  6  ^eknoviievo^;,  el^^ez^  yap  irdvra, 
aXX'  01  dvOpcoTTOL  ol  dp^7]v  €^ovt€<^  rod  Xa/x^dveLV  iv  avro) 

VOL.  II.  0 


194 


THE  DIVINE  INDWELLING. 


KoX  81  avTov,  Orat.  i.  48.  Vid.  also  what  he  says  on 
the  phrase  ap^V  oScop.  Orat.  ii.  48,  &c.  Also  the  note 
of  the  Benedictine  editor  on  Justin^s  Tryphon.  61, 
referring  to  Tatian.  c.  Gent.  S.  Athenag.  Apol.  10. 
Iren.  H96r.  iv.  20,  n.  4.  Origen  in  Joan.  torn.  i.  39. 
TertuU.  Prax.  6,  and  Ambros.  de  Fid.  iii.  7. 

^    Flesh  being  first  sanctified  in  Him/^  says  Athan., 

and  He  being  said  on  account  of  it  to  have  received  as 
man  [the  anointing],  we  have  the  sequel  of  the  Spirit^s 
grace  receiving  out  of  His  fulness.^'  Orat.  i.  50.  vid.  art. 
Orace.  Other  Fathers  use  still  stronger  langaage.  S. 
Ohrysostom  explains,  He  is  born  of  our  Substance  : 
you  will  say,  ^  This  does  not  pertain  to  all  yea,  to  all. 
He  mingles  (avajiL^vvaLv)  Himself  with  the  faithful 
individually,  through  the  mysteries,  and  whom  He  has 
begotten  those  He  nurses  from  Himself,  not  puts  them 
out  to  other  hands/^  &c.  Hom.  82,  5,  in  Matt.,  &c.,  &c. 
vid.  art.  Freedom. 

In  Orat.  iii.  §  33  S.  Athanasius  uses  the  strong  phrase 
XoycoOeiar]^  rrj^;  aapKo^,  of  regenerate  human  nature. 
Damascene  speaks  of  the  \6y(0(Ti<^  of  the  flesh,  but  he 
means  principally  our  Lord^s  flesh,  F.  O.  iv.  18,  p.  286, 
ed.  Ven.  For  the  words  deovadat,  &c.  vid.  supr.  art. 
Deification ;  also  vid.  The  Flesh. 

^  Nor  is  this  all ;  we  must  go  on  to  the  results 
of  this  doctrine,  as  indicated  in  the  following  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  are  referred  to  above : 
*^^Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God,  and 
that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in  you  ?  1  Cor. 
iii.  16,  17;  vi.  15—20.  2  Cor.  vi.  16,  &c.  It  is  plain 
that  there  is  a  special  presence  of  God  in  those  who  are 


THE  DIVINE  INDWELLING. 


195 


real  members  of  our  Lord.  To  this  St.  Paul  seems  to 
refer  when  he  says^  They  glorified  God  in  me^^^ 
Gal.  i.  24.  To  this  and  to  other  passages  noted  supr. 
Athanasius  refers,  when  he  says,  Because  of  our 
relationship  to  His  Body  we  too  have  become  God^s 
temple,  and  in  consequence  are  made  God^s  sons,  so 
that  even  in  us  the  Lord  is  now  worshipped,  and 
beholders  report,  as  the  Apostle  says,  that  God  is  in 
them  of  a  truth.''^  Orat.  i.  §  43.  And  S.  Basil,  arguing 
for  the  worship  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  says,  Man  in 
common  is  crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  and  glory 
and  honour  and  peace  are  reserved  in  the  promises  for 
every  one  who  doeth  good.  And  there  is  a  certain 
glory  of  Israel  peculiar,  and  the  Psalmist  speaks  of  a 
glory  of  his  own,  ^  Awake  up  my  glory;  ^  and  there  is 
a  glory  of  the  sun,  and  according  to  the  Apostle  even 
a  ministration  of  condemnation  with  glory.  So  many 
then  being  glorified,  choose  you  that  the  Spirit  alone 
of  all  should  be  without  glory  ?     de  Sp.  S.  c.  24. 

IF  We  are  led  on  to  a  farther  remark  : — If  even  while 
we  are  in  the  flesh,  soul  and  body  become,  by  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  Word,  so  elevated  above  their  natural 
state^  so  sacred,  that  to  profane  them  is  a  sacrilege,  is 
it  wonderful  that  the  Saints  above  should  so  abound  in 
prerogatives  and  privileges,  and  should  claim  a  reli- 
gious cAiltus,  when  once  in  the  pleroma,  and  in  the  sight 
as  in  the  fruition  of  the  exuberant  infinitude  of  God  ? 


196 


MARCELLUS. 


MARCELLUS. 


IT  Marcellus  was  Bishop  of  Ancyra  in  Galatia. 
In  the  early  years  of  S.  Athanasius^s  episcopate,  he 
wrote  his  Answer  to  the  Arian  Asterius  and  others^ 
which  was  the  occasion,  and  forms  the  subject  of 
Eusebius^s  contra  Marcellum  and  Ecclesiastica 
Theologia/^  and  which  is  the  only  authentic  existing 
document  recording  his  opinions.  Now  he  replies  to 
Asterius/^  says  Eusebius,  now  to  the  great  Eusebius 
[of  Nicomedia] ,  and  then  he  turns  upon  that  man  of 
God,  that  indeed  thrice  blessed  p.erson,  Paulinus  [of 
Tyre] .  Then  he  goes  to  war  with  Origen.  .  .  Next  he 
marches  out  against  Narcissus,  and  pursues  the  other 
Eusebius/^  himself.  In  a  word,  he  counts  for  nothing 
all  the  Ecclesiastical  Fathers,  being  satisfied  with  no  one 
but  himself.^^  contr.  Marc.  i.  4.  He  was  in  consequence 
condemned  in  several  Arian  Councils,  and  retired  to 
Rome,  as  did  S;  Athanasius,  about  the  year  341,  when 
both  of  them  were  formally  acquitted  of  heterodoxy  by 
the  Pope  in  Council.  Both  were  present,  and  both 
were  again  acquitted,  at  the  Council  of  Sardica  in  347. 
From  this  very  date,  however,  the  charges  against  him, 
which  had  hitherto  been  confined  to  the  Arians,  begin 
to  find  a  voice  among  the  Catholics.  S.  Cyril  in  his 
Catechetical  Lectures,  a.d.  347,  speaks  of  the  heresy 
which  had  lately  arisen  in  Galatia,  which  denied  Christ^s 


MARCELLUS. 


197 


eternal  reign^  a  description  which,  both  from  country 
and  tenet  is  evidently  levelled  at  Marcellus.  He  is 
followed  by  S.  Paulinus  at  the  Council  of  Aries,  and 
by  S.  Hilary,  in  the  years  which  follow ;  but  S. 
Athanasius  seems  to  have  acknowledged  him  down  to 
about  A.D.  360.  At  length  the  latter  began  to  own 
that  Marcellus  ^Svas  not  far  from  heresy/'  vid.  below, 
and  S.  Hilary  and  S.  Sulpicius  say  that  he  separated 
from  his  communion.  S.  Hilary  adds  (Fragm.  ii.  21) 
that  Athanasius  was  decided  in  this  course,  not  by 
Marcellus^s  work  against  Asterius,  but  by  publications 
posterior  to  the  Council  of  Sardica.  Photinus,  the 
disciple  of  Marcellus,  who  had  published  the  very 
heresy  imputed  to  the  latter  before  a>d.  345,  had 
now  been  deposed  for  some  years,  with  the  unanimous 
consent  of  all  parties. 

^  Thus  for  ten  years  Marcellus  was  disowned  by  the 
Saint  with  whom  he  had  shared  so  many  trials ;  but  in 
the  very  end  of  S.  Athanasius's  life  a  transaction  took 
place  between  himself,  S.  Basil,  and  the  Galatian  school, 
which  issued  in  his  being  induced  again  to  think  more 
favourably  of  Marcellus,  or  at  least  to  think  it  right  in 
charity  to  consider  him  in  communion  with  the  Church, 
S.  Basil  had  taken  a  strong  part  against  him,  and  wrote 
to  S.  Athanasius  on  the  subject,  Ep.  69,  2,  thinking 
that  Athanasius's  apparent  countenance  of  him  did 
harm  to  the  Catholic  cause.  Upon  this  the  accused 
party  sent  a  deputation  to  Alexandria,  with  a  view  of 
setting  themselves  right  with  Athanasius.  Eugenius, 
deacon  of  their  Church,  was  their  representative,  and 
he,  in  behalf  of  his  brethren,  subscribed  a  statement  in 


198 


MAECELLUS, 


vindication  of  his  and  their  orthodoxy,  which  was  counter- 
signed by  the  clergy  of  Alexandria  and  apparently  by  S. 
Athanasius,  though  his  name  does  not  appear  among  the 
extant  signatures.  This  important  document,  which  was 
brought  to  light  and  published  by  Montfaucon,  speaks 
in  the  name  of  the  Clergy  and  the  others  assembled 
in  Ancyra  of  Galatia,  with  our  father  Marcellus/^  He, 
as  well  as  Athanasius  himself,  died  immediately  after 
this  transaction,  Marcellus  in  extreme  age,  being  at 
least  twenty  years  older  than  Athanasius,  who  himself 
lived  till  past  the  age  of  seventy.  One  might  trust 
that  the  life  of  the  former  was  thus  prolonged,  till  he 
really  recanted  the  opinions  which  go  under  his  name ; 
yet  viewing  him  historically,  and  not  in  biography,  it 
still  seems  right,  and  is  in  accordance  with  the  usage 
of  the  Church  in  other  cases,  to  consider  him  rather  in 
his  works  and  in  his  school  and  its  developments,  than 
in  his  own  person  and  in  his  penitence. 

^  Whether  S.  Athanasius  wrote  the  controversial 
passages  which  form  Orat.  iv.  against  him  or  against 
his  school,  in  either  case  it  was  prior  to  the  date  of  the 
explanatory  document  signed  by  Eugenius ;  nor  is  its 
interpretation  affected  by  that  explanation.  As  to  S. 
Hilary ^s  statement,  that  S.  Athanasius  did  not  condemn 
the  particular  work  of  Marcellus  against  Asterius,  of 
which  alone  portions  remain  to  us,  his  evidence  in 
other  parts  of  the  history  is  not  sufficiently  exact  for 
us  to  rely  on  his  evidence  in  Marcellus^s  favour, 
against  the  plainly  heretical  import  of  the  statements 
made  in  that  work.  Those  statements  were  as  follows  : — 

Marcellus  held,  according  to  Eusebius,  that  (1)  there 


MARCELLUS. 


199 


was  but  one  person^  TrpocrcoTrov,  in  the  Divine  Nature ; 
but  lie  differed  from  Sabellius  in  maintaining^,  (2)  not 
that  the  Father  was  the  Son  and  the  Son  the  Father^ 
(which  is  called  the  doctrine  of  the  vloTrdrcopy)  but  that 

(3)  Father  and  Son  were  mere  names  or  titles^  and 

(4)  not  expressive  of  essential  characteristics^ — names 
or  titles  given  to  Almighty  God  and  (5)  to  His  Eternal 
Word,  on  occasion  of  the  Word^s  appearing  in  the 
flesh,  in  the  person,  or  subsistence  {viroaTacns:)  of  Jesus 
Christ  the  Son  of  Mary.  The  Word,  he  considered, 
was  from  all  eternity  in  the  one  God,  being  analogous 
to  man^s  reason  within  him,  or  the  iv8td0eTo<^  X6709  of 
the  philosophical  schools.  (6)  This  One  God  or  jxova^, 
has  condescended  to  extend  or  expand  Himself, 
irXarvveadai,  to  effect  our  salvation.  (7  and  8)  The 
expansion  consists  in  the  action,  ivepyeia,  of  the  \6709, 
which  then  becomes  the  \6709  7rpo(\>opiKo^  or  voice  of 
God,  instead  of  His  inward  Reason.  (9)  The  incarna- 
tion is  a  special  divine  expansion,  viz.  an  expansion  in 
the  flesh  of  Jesus,  Son  of  Mary;  (10)  in  order  to 
which  the  Word  went  forth,  as  at  the  end  of  the 
dispensation  He  will  return.  Consequently  the  X6709 
is  not  (11)  the  Son,  nor  (12)  the  Image  of  God,  nor 
the  Christ,  nor  the  First-begotten,  nor  King,  but 
Jesus  is  all  these ;  and  if  these  titles  are  applied  to  the 
Word  in  Scripture,  they  are  applied  prophetically,  in 
anticipation  of  His  manifestation  in  the  flesh.  (13) 
And  when  He  has  accomplished  the  object  of  His 
coming,  they  will  cease  to  apply  to  Him ;  for  He 
will  leave  the  flesh,  return  to  God,  and  be  merely  the 
Word  as  before ;  and  His  Kingdom,  as  being  the 


200 


MARCELLUS. 


Kingdom  of  the  flesh  or  manhood,  will  come  to  an 
end. 

This  account  of  the  tenets  of  Marcellus  comes,  it  is 
true,  from  an  enemy,  who  was  writing  against  him, 
and  moreover  from  an  Arian  or  Arianiser,  who  was 
least  qualified  to  judge  of  the  character  of  tenets 
which  were  so  opposite  to  his  own.  Yet  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  its  correctness  on  this  account. 
Eusebius  supports  his  charges  by  various  extracts  from 
Marcellus^s  works,  and  he  is  corroborated  by  the 
testimony  of  others.  Moreover,  if  Athanasius's  account 
of  the  tenets  against  which  he  himself  writes  in  his 
fourth  Oration,  answers  to  what  Eusebius  tells  us  of 
those  of  Marcellus,  as  in  fact  they  do,  the  coincidence 
confirms  Eusebius  as  well  as  explains  Athanasius. 
And  further,  the  heresy  of  Photinus,  the  disciple  of 
Marcellus,  which  consisted  in  the  very  doctrines  which 
Eusebius  deduces  from  the  work  of  Marcellus,  gives 
an  additional  weight  to  such  deductions. 

%  He  wrote  his  work  against  Asterius  not  later 
than  335,  the  year  of  the  Arian  Council  of  Jerusalem, 
which  at  once  took  cognisance  of  it,  and  cited  Marcellus 
to  appear  before  them.  The  same  year  a  Council  held 
at  Constantinople  condemned  and  deposed  him,  about 
the  time  that  Arius  came  thither  for  re-admission  into 
the  Church.  From  that  time  his  name  is  frequently 
introduced  into  the  Arian  anathemas,  vid.  Macrostich, 
Syn.  §  26.  By  adding  in  that  document  those  who 
communicate  with  him,^^  the  Eusebians  intended  to 
strike  at  the  Roman  see,  which  had  acquitted  Marcellus 
in  a  Council  held  in  June  of  the  same  year. 


MARCELLUS. 


201 


^  The  Arians  of  Alexandria^  writing  to  Alexander, 
(Syn.  §  16)  speak  of  tlie  Son  ^^not  as  existing  before, 
and  afterwards  generated  or  new  created  into  a  Son/^ 
One  school  of  theologians  may  be  aimed  at,  who  held 
our  Lord's  crvyicaTdjiacri^  to  create  the  world  was  His 
^kvvr](Ti<;,  and  certainly  such  language  as  that  of  Hippol. 
contr.  Noet.  §  15,  favours  the  supposition.  But  a 
class  of  the  Sabellians  may  more  probably  be  intended, 
who  held  that  the  Word  became  the  Son  on  His  incar- 
nation, such  as  MarceUus,  vid.  Euseb.  Eccles.  Theol.  i. 
1.  contr.  Marc.  ii.  3.  vid.  also  Eccles.  Theol.  ii.  9,  p. 
114.  b.  iiy]S  dWore  aXXrjv  k,  t.  X.  Also  the  Macrostich 
says,  "  We  anathematise  those  who  call  Him  the  mere 
Word  of  God,  .  .  .  not  allowing  Him  to  be  Christ  and  Son 
of  God  before  all  ages,  but  from  the  time  He  took  on 
Him  our  flesh  .  .  .  such  are  the  followers  of  Marcellus 
and  Photinus,  &>g.''  Syn.  §  26.  Again,  Athanasius, 
Orat.  iv.  15,  says  that  of  those  who  divide  the  Word 
from  the  Son,  some  called  our  Lord's  manhood  the  Son, 
some  the  two  Natures  together,  and  some  said  that 
the  Word  Himself  became  the  Son  when  He  was  made 
man.''  It  makes  it  the  more  likely  that  Marcellus  is 
meant,  that  Asterius  seems  to  have  written  against  him 
before  the  Nicene  Council,  and  that  Arius  in  other  of 
his  writings  borrowed  from  Asterius,  vid.  de  Decret. 
§  8  ;  though  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  some  of 
the  early  Fathers  spoke  unadvisedly  on  this  subject, 
vid.  the  author's  Theological  Tracts. 

^  In  the  fourth  (Ariaii)  Confession  of  Antioch  (snpr. 
vol.i.p.  101)  words  are  used  which  answer  to  those  added 
in  the  second  General  Council  (381)  to  the  Creed,  and  are 


202 


MARCELLUS. 


directed  against  the  doctrine  of  Marcellus,  who  taught 
that  the  Word  was  but  a  divine  energy,  manifested  in 
Christ  and  retiring  from  Him  at  the  consummation  of 
all  things,  when  the  manhood  or  flesh  of  Christ  would 
consequently  no  longer  reign.  How  can  we  admit/^ 
says  Marcellus  in  Eusebius,  that  that  flesh,  which  is 
from  the  earth  and  profiteth  nothing,  should  co-exist 
with  the  Word  in  the  ages  to  come  as  serviceable  to 
Him  ?  de  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  8.  Again,  If  He  has 
received  a  beginning  of  His  Kingdom  not  more  than 
four  hundred  years  past,  it  is  no  paradox  that  He  who 
gained  that  kingdom  so  short  a  while  since,  should  be 
said  by  the  Apostle  to  deUver  it  up  to  God.  What  are 
we  to  gather  about  the  human  flesh,  which  the  Word 
bore  for  us,  not  four  hundred  years  since  ?  will  the 
Word  have  it  in  the  ages  to  come,  or  only  to  the  judg- 
ment season  ?  iii.  17.  And,  Should  any  ask  whether 
that  flesh  which  is  in  the  Word  has  become  immortal, 
we  say  to  him,  that  we  count  it  nob  safe  to  pro- 
nounce on  points  of  which  we  learn  not  for  certain 
from  divine  Scripture.^^    Ibid.  10. 

^  Pope  Julius  acquitted  Marcellus,  Athan.  Apol.  Ar. 
32,  A.D.  341,  but  it  would  seem  that  he  did  not  eventually 
preserve  himself  from  heresy,  even  if  he  deserved  a 
favourable  judgment  at  that  time.  Athan.  also  sides 
with  him,  de  Fug.  3.  Hist.  Arian.  6,  but  Epiphanius 
records,  that,  once  on  his  asking  Athan.  what  he 
(Athan.)  thought  of  Marcellus,  a  smile  came  on  his 
face,  as  if  he  had  an  opinion  of  him  which  he  did  not 
like  to  express,  or  which  Epiphanius  ought  not  to 
have  asked  for.    Haer.  72,  4.    And  S.  Hilary  says  that 


MARCELLUS. 


203 


Athan.  separated  Marcellus  from  his  communion, 
because  he  agreed  with  his  disciple,  Photinus.  He  is 
considered  heretical  by  Bpiphanius,  I.e. ;  by  Basil,  Epp. 
69,  125,  263,  265 ;  Chrysost.  in  Heb.  i.  8;  Theod.  H^r. 
ii.  10  j  by  Petavius,  far  more  strongly  by  Bull.  Mont- 
faucon  defends  him,  Tillemont,  and  Natal.  Alex. 


204 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


THE   BLESSED  MART. 

1.  Mary  Ever-Virgin, 

This  title  is  found  in  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  §  70.  ^^Let 
those  wlio  deny  that  the  Son  is  from  the  Father  by 
nature  and  proper  to  His  substance^  deny  also  that  He 
took  true  human  flesh  of  Mary  Ever-Virgin/^  Vid.  also 
Athan.  Comm.  in  Luc.  in  Collect.  Nov,  t.  2,  p.  43. 
Epiph.  Hser.  78,  5.  Didym.  Trin.  i.  27,  p.  84.  Eufin. 
Fid.  i.  43.  Lepor.  ap.  Cassian.  Incarn.  i.  5.  Leon.  Ep. 
28,  2.  Pseudo-Basil,  t.  2,  p.  598.  Caesarius  has 
aeuirah,  Qu.  20.  On  the  doctrine  itself,  vid.  the  con- 
troversial Tract  of  S.  Jerome  against  Helvidius ;  also 
a  letter  of  S.  Ambrose  and  his  brethren  to  Siricius, 
and  the  Pope^s  letter  in  response.  Const.  Ep.  Pont, 
t.  i.  p.  669—682. 

^  Pearson,  Bishop  of  Chester,  writes  well  upon  this 
subject.  Creed,  Art.  3.  (A  passage  from  him  is  also 
incidentally  quoted  infr.  art.  evae/Sela.)    He  says  here. 

As  we  are  taught  by  the  predictions  of  the  Prophets 
that  a  Virgin  was  to  be  Mother  of  the  promised 
Messias,  so  are  we  assured  by  the  infallible  relation  of 
the  Evangelists,  that  this  Mary  ^was  a  Virgin  when 
she  bare  Him.^  ....  Neither  was  her  act  of  parturition 
more  contradictory  to  virginity  than  that  former  [act] 
of  conception.    Thirdly,  we  believe  the  Mother  of  our 


THE  BLESSED  MAEY. 


205 


Lord  to  have  been^  not  only  before  and  after  His 
nativity,  but  also  for  ever,  the  most  immaculate  and 

blessed  Virgin  The  peculiar  eminency  and 

unparalleled  privilege  of  that  Mother,  the  special 
honour  and  reverence  due  unto  her  Son  and  ever  paid 
by  her,  the  regard  of  that  Holy  Ghost  who  came  upon 
her,  the  singular  goodness  and  piety  of  Joseph,  to 
whom  she  was  espoused,  have  persuaded  the  Church  of 
God  in  all  ages  to  believe  that  she  still  continued  in 
the  same  virginity,  and  therefore  is  to  be  acknowledged 
as  the  Ever- Virgin  Mary/^    Creed,  Art.  3. 

He  adds  that  many  have  taken  the  boldness  to 
deny  this  truth,  because  not  recorded  in  the  sacred 
writ,^^  but  with  no  success/^  He  replies  to  the 
argument  from  until  in  Matt.  i.  25  by  referring  to 
Gen.  xxviii.  15,  Deut.  xxxiv.  6,  1  Sam.  xv.  35,  2  Sam. 
vi.  23,  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 

He  might  also  have  referred  to  Psalm  cix.  1  and 
1  Cor.  XV.  25,  which  are  the  more  remarkable  because 
they  were  urged  by  the  school  of  Marcellus  as  a  proof 
that  our  Lord's  kingdom  would  have  an  end,  and  are 
explained  by  Euseb.  himself,  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  13,  14. 
Vid.  also  Cyr.  Cat.  15,  29,  Naz.  Orat.  30.  4,  where 
the  true  force  of  until  is  well  brought  out, — He 
who  is  King  hefore  He  subdued  His  enemies,  how 
shall  He  not  the  ratlier  be  King  after  He  has  got 
the  mastery  over  them  ? 

IT  I  have  said  in  a  note  on  the  word  in  the  Aiirea  Ca- 
tena, that  the  word  'Hill^^  need  not  imply  a  termination 
at  a  certain  point  of  time,  but  may  be  given  as  informa- 
tion up  to  a  certain  point  from  which  onwards  there  is 


206 


THE  BLESSED  MAEY. 


already  no  doubt.  Supposing  an  Evangelist  thought 
the  very  notion  shocking  that  Joseph  should  have  con- 
sidered the  Blessed  Virgin  as  his  wife^  after  he  was 
witness  of  her  bearing  the  Son  of  God,  he  would  only 
say  that  the  vision  had  its  effect  upon  him  up  to  that 
date,  when  the  idea  was  monstrous.  If  one  said  of 
a  profligate,  that,  in  consequence  of  some  awful  warn- 
ing, he  had  said  a  prayer  for  grace  every  night  up  to 
the  time  of  his  conversion,  no  one  would  gather  the  ace 
that  he  left  off  praying  on  being  converted.  Michal 
the  daughter  of  Saul  had  no  child  to  the  day  of  her 
death ;  had  she  children  after  it  ?  This  indeed  is 
one  of  Pearson^s  references.  Vid.  also  Suicer  de  Symb. 
Niceno-Const.  p.  231,  Spanheim,  Dub.  Evang.  parti. 
28,  11. 

^  Athan.  elsewhere  compares  the  Virgin^s  flesh  to  the 
pure  earth  of  Paradise  out  of  which  Adam  was  formed. 
She  is  avep^aaro^  77).  Orat.  ii.  §  7,  and  so  Iren.  Hser. 
iii.  21  fin.,  and  Tertullian,  That  virgin  earth,  not  yet 
watered  by  rains,  nor  impregnated  by  showers,  from 
which  man  was  formed  in  the  beginning,  from  which 
Christ  is  now  born  according  to  the  flesh  from  a  Vir- 
gin.^^  Adv.  Jud.  13,  vid.  de  Oarn.  Christ.  17.  Ex 
terra  virgine  Adam,  Christus  ex  virgine.^^  Ambros.  in 
Luc.  lib.  iv.  7.  Vid.  also  the  parallel  drawn  out  t.  v.  Serm. 
147.  App.  S.  August,  and  in  Proclus,  Orat.  2,  pp.  103, 
4,  ed.  1630,  vid.  also  Chrysost.  t.  3,  p.  113,  ed.  Ben. 
and  Theodotus  at  Ephesus,  0  earth  unsown,  yet 
bearing  a  salutary  fruit,  0  Virgin,  who  didst  surpass  the 
very  Paradise  of  Eden,^^  &c.  Cone.  Eph.  p.  4  (Hard, 
t.  i.  p.  1643).     And  so  Proclus  again,      She,  the 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


207 


flowering  and  incorruptible  Paradise^  in  whom  the 
Tree  of  Life/'  &c.  Orat  6,  p.  227.  And  Basil  of 
Seleucia^  Hail^  full  of  grace^  the  amaranthine  Paradise 
of  purity,  in  whom  the  Tree  of  Life/'  &c.  Orat.  in 
Annunc.  p.  215.  And  p.  212,  Which,  think  they,  is 
the  harder  to  believe,  that  a  virgin  womb  should  be 
with  child,  or  the  ground  should  be  animated  ?  ''  &c. 
And  Hesychius,  Garden  unsown,  Paradise  of  im- 
mortality.'' Bibl.  Patr.  Par.  1624.  t.  2,  pp.  421,  423. 

%  Vid.  the  well-known  passage  in  S.  Ignatius,  ad 
Eph.  19,  where  the  devil  is  said  to  have  been 
ignorant  of  the  Virginity  of  Mary,  and  of  the  Nativity 
and  the  Death  of  Christ ;  Orig.  Hom.  6,  in  Luc.  Basil, 
(if  Basil,)  Hom.  in  t.  2,  App.  p.  598,  ed.  Ben.  and 
Jerome  in  Matt.  i.  18,  who  quote  it;  vid.  also  Leon. 
Serm.  22,  3.  Clement.  Eclog.  Proph.  p.  1002,  ed. 
Potter. 

^  Many,"  says  Athanasius,  have  been  made  holy 
and  clean  from  all  sin ;  nay,  Jeremias  was  hallowed 
even  from  the  womb,  and  John,  while  yet  in  the  womb, 
leapt  for  joy  at  the  voice  of  Mary  Mother  of  God." 
Orat.  iii.  §  33.  vid.  Jer.  i.  5.  And  so  S.  Jerome,  S. 
Leo,  &c.  as  mentioned  in  Corn,  a  Lap.  in  loc.  who  adds 
that  S.  Ephrem  considers  Moses  also  sanctified  in  the 
womb,  and  S.  Ambrose  Jacob.  S.  Jerome  implies  a 
similar  gift  in  the  case  of  Asella  (ad  Marcell.  Ep.  24, 
2).  And  of  S.  John  Baptist,  Maldon.  in  Luc.  i.  15. 

%  It  is  at  first  strange  that  these  instances  of  special 
exemptions  should  be  named  by  early  writers,  without 
our  Lady  also  being  mentioned ;  or  rather  it  would 
be  strange,  unless  wo  bore  in  mind  how  little  is 


208 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


said  of  her  at  all  by  Scripture  or  the  Fathers  up  to  the 
Council  of  Ephesus^  a.d.  431.  It  would  seem  as  if, 
till  our  Lord^s  glory  called  for  it,  it  required  an  effort 
for  the  reverent  devotion  of  the  Church  to  speak  much 
about  her  or  to  make  her  the  subject  of  popular 
preaching ;  but,  when  by  her  manifestation  a  right 
faith  in  her  Divine  Son  was  to  be  secured,  then  the 
Church  was  to  be  guided  in  a  contrary  course.  It 
must  be  recollected  that  there  was  a  discipUna 
arcani  in  the  first  centuries,  and,  if  it  was  exercised, 
as  far  as  might  be,  as  regards  the  Holy  Trinity  and 
the  Eucharist,  so  would  it  be  as  regards  the  Blessed 
Virgin. 

I  have  insisted  upon  this  deep  sentiment  of  reverence 
in  matters  of  sacred  doctrine  in  my  History  of  the 
Arians,^'  written  long  before  I  was  a  Catholic,  and  I 
may  fairly  quote  here  one  of  several  passages  contained 
in  it,  in  solution  of  a  difficulty  with  which  at  that 
time  I  was  not  concerned.  For  instance,  I  say,  ch.  2, 
§  1:  —  The  meaning  and  practical  results  of  deep- 
seated  religious  reverence  were  far  better  understood 
in  the  primitive  times  than  now,  when  the  infidelity 
of  the  world  has  corrupted  the  Church.  Now,  we 
allow  ourselves  publicly  to  canvass  the  most  solemn 
truths  in  a  careless  or  fiercely  argumentative  way ; 
truths,  which  it  is  as  useless  as  it  is  unseemly  to  discuss 
before  men,  as  being  attainable  only  by  the  sober  and 
watchful,  by  slow  degrees,  with  dependence  on  the 
Giver  of  wisdom,  and  with  strict  obedience  to  the  light 
which  has  already  been  granted.  Then,  they  would 
scarcely  express  in  writing,  what  now  is  not  only 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


209 


preached  to  the  mixed  crowds  who  frequent  our 
churches^  but  circulated  in  prints  among  all  ranks  and 
classes  of  the  unclean  and  the  profane^  and  pressed 
upon  all  who  choose  to  purchase.  Nay^  so  perplexed 
is  the  present  state  of  things^  that  the  Glmrch  is  obliged 
to  change  her  course  of  acting,  after  the  spirit  of  the 
alteration  made  at  Nicsea^  and  unwillingly  to  take  part 
in  the  theological  discussions  of  the  day^  as  a  man 
crushes  venomous  creatures  of  necessity,  powerful  to 
do  it,  but  loathing  the  employment/^  I  am  corro- 
borated in  my  insistance  on  this  principle  by  the  words 
of  Sozomen,  who  says,  I  formerly  deemed  it  necessary 
to  transmit  the  confession  drawn  up  by  the  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Nicene  Council,  in  order  that  posterity 
might  possess  a  public  record  of  the  truth;  but 
subsequently  I  was  persuaded  to  the  contrary  by  some 
godly  and  learned  men,  who  represented  that  such 
matters  ought  to  be  kept  secret,  as  only  requisite  to 
be  known  by  disciples  and  their  instructors/^  Hist, 
i.  20. 

In  an  Anglican  Sermon  of  a  later  date,  I  apply 
this  instinctive  feeling  to  the  fact  of  the  silence  of 
Scripture  about  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  its  narrative  of 
the  Resurrection.  Here  perhaps,^^  I  say,  we  learn  a 
lesson  from  the  deep  silence  which  Scripture  observes 
concerning  the  Blessed  Virgin  after  the  Resurrection ; 
as  if  she,  who  was  too  pure  and  holy  a  flower  to  be 
more  than  seen  here  on  earth,  even  during  the  season 
of  her  Son^s  humiliation,  was  altogether  drawn  by  the 
Angels  into  paradise  on  His  Resurrection,^^  &c. 
Par.  Serm.  vol.  iv.  23.     And  I  refer  in  a  note  to 

VOL  II.  P 


210 


THE  BLESSED  MAEY. 


the  following  passage  in  the  Christian  Year  : 

God  only,  and  good  angels,  look 

Behind  the  blissful  screen, — 
As  when,  triumphant  o'er  His  woes, 
The  Son  of  God  by  moonlight  rose, 

By  all  but  Heaven  unseen  ; 
As  when  the  Holy  Maid  beheld 

Her  risen  Son  and  Lord, 
Thought  has  not  colours  half  so  fair, 
That  we  to  paint  that  hour  may  dare, 

In  silence  best  adored." 

Such  doubtless  were  the  spirit  and  the  tone  of  the 
Church  till  Nestorias  came  forward  to  deny  that  the 
Son  of  God  was  the  Son  of  Mary.  Thenceforward 
her  title  of  Theotocos^  already  in  use  among  Christian 
writers^  became  dogmatic. 

2.  Mary  Theotocos, 

Mater  Dei.  Mother  of  God.  Vid.  art.  avriSoa-t^; 
ISLcofiaTayv.  Athanasius  gives  the  title  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin,  Orat.  iii.  §  14,  §  29,  §  33.  Orat  iv.  32. 
Incarn.  c.  Ar.  8,  22. 

^  As  to  the  history  of  this  title,  Theodoret,  who  from 
his  party  would  rather  be  disinclined  towards  it,  says 
that  the  most  ancient  [tmv  iraXaL  kol  irpoircCKaL)  heralds 
of  the  orthodox  faith  taught  the  faithful  to  name  and 
believe  the  Mother  of  the  Lord  0€ot6ko<;,  according  to 
the  Apostolical  tradition.'^  H^er.  iv.  12.  And  John  of 
Antioch,  whose  championship  of  Nestorius  and  quarrel 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


211 


with  S.  Cyril  are  well  known^  writes  to  the  former,  This 
title  no  ecclesiastical  teacher  has  put  aside  ;  those  who 
have  used  it  are  many  and  eminent,  and  those  who  have 
not  used  it  have  not  attacked  those  who  used  it/^ 
Concil.  Eph.  part  i.  c.  25.  (Labb.)  And  Alexander, 
the  most  obstinate  or  rather  furious  of  all  Nestorius^s 
adherents,  who  died  in  banishment  in  Egypt,  fully 
allows  the  ancient  reception  of  the  word,  though  only 
into  popular  use,  from  which  came  what  he  considers 
the  doctrinal  corruption.  That  in  festive  solemnities, 
or  in  preaching  and  teaching,  deoroKo^  should  be  un- 
guardedly said  by  the  orthodox  without  explanation, 
is  no  blame,  because  such  statements  were  not  dog- 
matic, nor  said  with  evil  meaning.  But  now  after  the 
corruption  of  the  whole  world/'  &c.  Lup.  Ephes.  Epp. 
94.  He  adds  that  it,  as  well  as  av9pa)iTOT6ico<^,  was  used 
by  the  great  doctors  of  the  Church.-'^  Socrates,  Hist, 
vii.  32,  says  that  Origen,  in  the  first  tome  of  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  Romans  (vid.  de  la  Rue  in  Rom.  lib.  i.  5, 
the  original  is  lost),  treated  largely  of  the  word ;  which 
implies  that  it  was  already  in  use.  Interpreting,^^  he 
says,  how  Oeoro/co^;  is  used,  he  discussed  the  question 
at  length.''^  Constantino  implies  the  same,  with  an 
allusion  to  pagan  mythology  of  an  unpleasant  kind  ;  he 
says,  When  He  had  to  draw  near  to  a  body  of  this 
world,  and  to  tarry  on  earth,  the  need  so  requiring.  He 
contrived  a  sort  of  irregular  birth  of  Himself,  voOrjv 
TLva  yeveaiv ;  for  without  marriage  was  there  concep- 
tion, and  childbirth,  elXeiOvta,  from  a  pure  Virgin,  and 
a  maid,  the  Mother  of  God,  6eov  ixr]Trip  Koprj,^^  Ad.  Sanct. 
Coet.  p.  480.    The  idea  must  have  been  familiar  to 

p2 


212 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


Christians  before  Constantine^s  date  to  be  recognised 
by  him^  a  mere  catechumen^  and  to  be  virtually  com- 
mented on  by  such  a  parallelism. 

IT  For  instances  of  the  word  deorofco^,  besides  Origen. 
ap.  Socr.  vii.  32,  vid.  Euseb.  V.  Const,  iii.  43,  in  Psalm, 
cix.  4,  p.  703,  Montf.  Nov.  Coll. ;  Alexandr.  Ep.  ad  Alex, 
ap.  Theodor.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  745;  Athan.  (supra);  Cyril.  Cat. 
X.  19  ;  Julian  Imper.  ap.  Cyril,  c.  Jul.  viii.  p.  262  ;  Am- 
philoch.  Orat.  4,  p.  41  (if  Amphil.)  ed.  1644;  Nyssen.  Ep. 
ad  Eustath.  p.  1093 ;  Chrysost.  apud  Suicer  Symb.  t.  ii. 
p.  240;  Greg.Naz.  Orat.  29.  4;  Ep.  101,  p.  85,  ed.  Ben. 
Antiochus  and  Ammon.  ap.  Cyril,  de  Kecta  Fid.  pp. 
49,  50  ;  Pseudo-Dion,  contr.  Samos.  5,  p.  240 ;  Pseudo- 
Basil.  Hom.  t.  2,  p.  600,  ed.  Ben. 

If  Pearson  on  the  Creed  (notes  on  Art.  3),  arguing^ 
from  Ephrem.  ap.  Phot.  Cod.  228,  p.  775,  says  the 
phrase  Mater  Dei  originated  with  St.  Leo.  On  the  con- 
trary, besides  in  Constantine^s  Oration  as  above,  it  is 
found,  before  S.  Leo,  in  Ambros.  de  Yirg.  ii.  7 ; 
Cassian.  Incarn.  ii.  5,  vii.  25;  Vincent.  Lir.  Commonit. 
21.  It  is  obvious  that  OeoroKo^,  though  framed  as  a 
test  against  Nestorians,  was  equally  effective  against 
ApoUinarians  and  Eutychians,  who  denied  that  our 
Lord  had  taken  human  flesh  at  all,  as  is  observed  by 
Facundus  Def.  Trium  Cap.  i.  4.     And  so  S.  Cyril, 

Let  it  be  carefully  observed,  that  nearly  this  whole 
contest  about  the  faith  has  been  created  against  us  for 
our  maintaining  that  the  Holy  Virgin  is  Mother  of  God  ; 
now,  if  we  hold,^^  as  was  the  calumny,  that  the  Holy 
Body  of  Christ  our  common  Saviour  was  from  heaven, 
and  not  born  of  her,  how  can  she  be  considered  as 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


213 


Mother  of  God  ?  Epp.  pp.  106,  7.  Yet  these  sects,  as 
the  Arians,  maintained  the  term.  Yid.  supr.  Heresies. 

^  As  to  the  doctrine,  which  the  term  implies  and 
guards,  the  following  are  specimens  of  it.  Vid.  S.  CyriFs 
quotations  in  his  de  Recta  Fide,  p.  49,  &c.  The 
fleshless,^^  says  Atticus,  becomes  flesh,  the  impalpable 
is  handled,  the  perfect  grows,  the  unalterable  advances, 
the  rich  is  brought  forth  in  an  inn,  the  coverer  of 
heaven  with  clouds  is  swathed,  the  king  is  laid  in  a 
mangar.^^  Antiochus  speaks  of  Him,  our  Saviour,  with 
whom  yesterday  in  an  immaculate  bearing  Mary 
travailed,  the  Mother  of  life,  of  beauty,  of  majesty,  the 
Morning  Star,''  &c.  ''The  Maker  of  all,''  says  S. 
Amphilochius,  ''  is  born  to  us  to-day  of  a  Virgin.'^ 
''She  did  compass,"  says  S.  Chrysostom,  "without 
circumscribing  the  Sun  of  righteousness.  To-day  the 
Everlasting  is  born,  and  becomes  what  He  was  not. 
He  who  sitteth  on  a  high  and  lofty  throne  is  placed  in 
a  manger,  the  impalpable,  incomposite,  and  immaterial 
is  wrapped  around  by  human  hands  ;  He  who  snaps  the 
bands  of  sin,  is  environed  in  swathing  bands."  And 
in  like  manner  S.  Cyril  himself,  "  As  a  woman,  though 
bearing  the  body  only,  is  said  to  bring  forth  one  who 
is  made  up  of  body  and  soul,  and  that  will  be  no  injury 
to  the  interests  of  the  soul,  as  if  it  found  in  flesh  the 
origin  of  its  existence,  so  also  in  the  instance  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin,  though  she  is  Mother  of  the  Holy 
Flesh,  yet  she  bore  God  of  God  the  Word,  as  being  in 
truth  one  with  it."  Adv.  Nest.  i.  p.  18.  "  God  dwelt 
in  the  womb,  yet  was  not  circumscribed ;  whom  the 
heaven  containeth  not,  the  Virgin's  frame  did  not 


214 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


straiten/^  ProcL  Orat.  i.  p.  60.  Wlien  thou  liearesfc 
that  God  speaks  from  the  bush^  and  Moses  falling  on 
his  face  worships,  believest  thou,  not  considering  the 
fire  that  is  seen,  but  God  that  speaks  ?  and  yet,  when 
I  mention  the  Virgin  womb,  dost  thou  abominate  and 
turn  away  ?  ...  In  the  bush  seest  thou  not  the  Virgin, 
in  the  fire  the  loving-kindness  of  Him  who  came  ? 
Theodotus  of  Ancyra  ap.  Cone.  Eph.  (p.  1529,  Labb.) 

Not  only  did  Mary  bear  her  Elder,^^  says  Cassian  in 
answer  to  an  objector,  but  her  Author,  and  giving 
birth  to  Him  from  whom  she  received  it,  she  became 
parent  of  her  Parent.  Surely  it  is  as  easy  for  God  to 
give  nativity  to  Himself,  as  to  man ;  to  be  born  of 
man,  as  to  make  men  born.  For  God^s  power  is  not 
circumscribed  in  His  own  Person,  that  he  should  not 
do  in  Himself  what  He  can  do  in  all.^^    Incarn.  iv.  2, 

The  One  God  Only-begotten,  of  an  inefiable  origin 
from  God,  is  introduced  into  the  womb  of  the  Holy 
Virgin,  and  grows  into  the  form  of  a  human  body. 
He  who  contrives  all  .  .  .  is  brought  forth  according 
to  the  law  of  a  human  birth ;  He  at  whose  voice  Arch- 
angels tremble  .  .  and  the  world^s  elements  are  dis- 
solved, is  heard  in  the  wailing  of  an  infant,^^  &c.  Hil. 
Trin.  ii.  25.  '  My  beloved  is  white  and  ruddy ;  ^ 
white  truly,  because  the  Brightness  of  the  Father, 
ruddy,  because  the  Birth  of  a  Virgin.  In  Him  shines 
and  glows  the  colour  of  each  nature  ;  .  .  He  did  not 
begin  from  a  Virgin,  but  the  Everlasting  came  into  a 
Virgin.^^  Ambros.  Virgin,  i.  n.  46.  Him,  whom, 
coming  in  His  simple  Godhead,  not  heaven,  not 
earth,   not    sea,   not    any   creature    had  endured. 


THE  BLESSED  MARY. 


215 


Him  the  inviolate  womb  of  a  Virgin  carried/^ 
Chrysost.  ap.  Cassian.  Incarn.  vii.  30.  Happily  do 
some  understand  by  the  ^  closed  gate/  by  which  only 
^  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  enters/  that  Prince  on  whom 
the  gate  is  closed,  to  be  the  Virgin  Mary,  who  both  be- 
fore and  after  her  bearinor  remained  a  Viro^in.^^  Jerom. 
in  Ezek.  44  init.  Let  them  tell  us/^  says  Capreolus  of 
Carthage,  how  is  that  Man  from  Heaven,  if  He  be 
not  God  conceived  in  the  womb  ?  ap.  Sirm.  0pp.  t.  i. 
p.  216.  He  is  made  in  thee,'^  says  S.  Austin,  who 
made  thee  .  .  .  nay,  through  whom  heaven  and  earth 
is  made ;  .  .  the  Word  of  God  in  thee  is  made  flesh, 
receiving  flesh,  not  losing  Godhead.  And  the  Word 
is  joined,  is  coupled  to  the  flesh,  and  of  this  so  high 
wedding  thy  womb  is  the  nuptial  chamber,^^  &c.  Serm. 
291,  6.        Say,  0  blessed  Mary,''  says  S.  Hippolytus, 

what  was  It  which  by  thee  was  conceived  in  the 
womb,  what  carried  by  thee  in  that  virgin  frame  ?  It 
was  the  Word  of  God,''  &c.    ap.  Theod.  Eran.  i.  p.  55. 

There  is  one  physician,"  says  S.  Ignatius,  fleshly 
and  spiritual,  generate  and  ingenerate,  God  come  in 
the  flesh,  in  death  true  life,  both  from  Mary  and 
from  God,  first  passible,  then  impassible,  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord."  Ep.  ad  Eph.  7. 


216 


MEDIATION. 


MEDIATION. 

God,  the  Origin  and  Cause  of  all  things,  acts  by  the 
mediation,  ministration,  or  operation  of  His  Son,  as 
signified  by  the  Son^s  names  of  Word  and  Wisdom. 
Vid.  art.  Eternal  Son, 

It  belongs  to  the  Son,^^  says  Athanasius,  to 
have  the  things  of  the  Father;  and  to  be  such  that 
the  Father  is  seen  in  Him,  and  that  through  Him 
all  things  were  made,  and  that  the  salvation  of  all 
comes  to  pass  and  consists  in  Him.^^  Orat  ii.  §  24. 

Men  were  made  through  the  Word,  when  the  Father 
Himself  willed.^'  Orat.  i.  §  63.  Even  if  God  com- 
pounded the  world  out  of  materials,  .  .  .  still  allow  the 
Word  to  work  those  materials,  say  at  the  bidding  and 
in  the  service  of  God,  irpoaTO.TTOfjbevo^;  koX  vTrovpycov ; 
but  if  by  His  own  Word  He  calls  into  existence  things 
which  existed  not,  then  the  Word  is  not  in  the  number 
of  things  not  existing/^  &c.  Orat  ii.  §  22.  With  whom 
did  God  speak,^^  (saying  Let  us  mahe,  &c.)  so  as  even 
to  speak  with  a  command,^^  Trpoardrrcov  ?  He  bids, 
irpoo-TaTTec,  and  says.  Let  us  make  men,  .  .  .  Who  was 
it  but  His  Word?^'  c.  Gent.  §  46.  ^^A  Word  then 
must  exist,  to  whom  God  gives  command,  evTeWerai  6 
^€09/'  de  Deer.  §  9. 

IF  The  language  of  Catholics  and  heretics  is  very  much 
the  same  on  this  point  of  the  Son^s  ministration,  with 


MEDIATION. 


217 


this  essential  difference  of  sense^  that  Catholic  writers 
mean  a  ministration  internal  to  the  divine  substance  and 
an  instrument  connatural  with  the  Father^  and  Arius 
meant  an  external  and  created  medium  of  operation, 
vid.  arts.  The  Divine  Hand  and  opyavov.  Thus  S.  Clement 
calls  our  Lord  ^^the  All-harmonius  Instrument  {opyavov) 
of  God.^^  Protrept.  p.  6.  Eusebius,  an  animated  and 
living  instrument^  {opyavov  e/jbyfrvxov,)  nay,  rather  divine 
and  .  .  .  vivific  of  every  substance  and  nature.'^ 
Demonstr.  iv.  4.  S.  Basil,  on  the  other  hand,  insists 
that  the  Arians  reduced  our  Lord  to  ^^an  inanimate 
instrument/^  opyavov  a'y\rv')(ov,  though  they  called  Him 
vTTovpyov  reXeLorarov,  most  perfect  minister  or  under- 
worker.^^  adv.  Eunom.  ii.  21.  Elsewhere  he  says,  *^^the 
nature  of  a  cause  is  one,  and  the  nature  of  an  instru- 
ment, opyavov,  another;  .  .  .  foreign  then  in  nature 
is  the  Son  from  the  Father,  as  an  instrument  is  from 
the  artist  who  uses  it.^^  de  Sp.  S.  n.  6  fin.  vid.  also 
n.  4  fin.  and  n.  20.  Afterwards  he  speaks  of  our 
Lord  as  not  intrusted  with  the  ministry  of  each  work 
by  particular  injunctions  in  detail,  for  this  were  minis- 
tration,^' XecTovpycfcoVy  but  as  being  full  of  the 
Father's  excellences,^^  and  fulfilling  not  an  instru- 
mental, opyavncrjv,  and  servile  ministration,  but  accom- 
plishing the  Father^s  will  like  a  Maker,  8rj/jbLovpyi/c(o<;.'' 
ibid.  n.  19.  And  so  S.  Gregory,  The  Father  signi- 
fies, the  Word  accomplishes,  not  servilely  nor  igno- 
rantly,  but  with  knowledge  and  sovereignty,  and,  to 
speak  more  suitably,  in  the  Father's  way,  TrarpLKo}^*^^ 
Orat.  30.  11.  And  S.  Cyril,  There  is  nothing  abject 
in  the  Son,  as  in  a  minister,  virovpycZy  as  they  say ;  for 


218 


MEDIATION. 


the  God  and  Father  enjoins  not  \_i7nTdTT€L]  on  His 
Word,  ^  Make  man/  but  as  one  with  Him,  by  nature, 
and  inseparably  existing  in  Him  as  a  co-operator,^^ 
&c.,  in  Joann.  p.  48.  Explanations  such  as  these 
secure  for  the  Catholic  writers  some  freedom  in  their 
modes  of  speaking;  e.g.  we  have  seen  supr.  that  Athan. 
seems  to  speak  of  the  Son  as  being  directed,  and  minis- 
tering,^^ 7rpo(TTaTT6fjb€vo<^,  KoX  vTTovpjcoVy  Orat.  ii.  §  22. 
Thus  S.  Irenseus  speaks  of  the  Father  being  well-pleased 
and  commanding,  KekevovTo<;,  and  the  Son  doing  and 
framing.  Haer.  iv.  38,  3.  S.  Basil  too,  in  the  same 
treatise  in  which  are  some  of  the  foregoing  protests, 
speaks  of  the  Lord  ordering,  [irpoaTdo-aovTay']  and  the 
Word  framing.^^  de  Sp.  S.  n.  38.  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusa- 
lem, of  Him  who  bids,  [ez^reXXerat,]  bidding  to  one 
who  is  present  with  Him,^^  Cat.  xi.  16.  vid.  also 
v7T7]p€Tcov  TTj  ^ovXjj,  Justiu.  Tryph.  126,  and  vTrovpjbvj 
Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  10  (Galland.  t.  2,  p.  95),  i^virv 
percov  dekrjjjbaTi,  Clem.  Strom,  vii.  p.  832. 

^  As  to  those  words  irpoararTopbevo^  koX  vTrovpycov^ 
it  is  not  quite  clear  that  Athan.  accepts  them  in 
his  own  person,  as  has  been  assumed  supr.  Vid. 
de  Deer.  §  7,  and  Orat.  ii.  §  24  and  31,  which,  as 
far  as  they  go,  are  against  such  use.  Also  S.  Basil 
objects  to  vTTovpyo^,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  21,  and  S. 
Cyril  in  Joan.  p.  48,  though  S.  Basil  speaks  of  tojj 
irpoo-TCLTTovTa  KvpLov,  as  noticed  above,  knd  S.  Cyril  of 
the  Son^s  vTrorayrj,  Thesaur.  p.  255.  Vid.  ^^minister- 
ing, vTrrjpeTovvra,  to  the  Father  of  all.''^  Just.  Tryph. 
n.  60.  The  Word  become  minister,  v7rrjp6T7]<;^  of  the 
Creator,^^  Origen  in  Joan.  t.  2,  p.  67,  also  Cons  tit. 


MEDIATION. 


219 


Ap.  viii.  12,  but  Pseudo-Athan.  objects  to  vTrrjpercov, 
de  Comm.  Essent.  30^  and  Athan.  apparently,  Orat.  ii. 
§  28.  Again,  "  Whom  did  He  order,  pra3cepit  ? 
Iren.  Hasr.  iii.  8,  n.  3.  ^^The  Father  bids  [ivreWerai] 
(allusion  to  Ps.  33,  9),  the  Word  accomplishes  .  .  . 
He  who  commands,  KeXevcoVy  is  the  Father,  He  who 
obeys,  viraKovcDv,  the  Son  .  .  .  the  Father  willed, 
rj6ek7]aev,  the  Son  did  it.^^  HippoL  c.  Noet.  14,  on 
which  vid.  Fabricius's  note.  S.  Hilary  speaks  of  the 
Son  as  subditus  per  obedientiee  obsequelam,^^  Syn.  51. 
Origen  contr.  Gels.  ii.  9.  Tertul.  adv.  Prax.  12,  fin. 
Patres  Antioch.  ap.  Routh  t.  2,  p.  468.  Prosper  in  Psalm. 
148.  Hilar.  Trin.  iv.  16.  That  the  Father  speaks  and 
the  Son  hears,  or  contrariwise,  that  the  Son  speaks  and 
the  Father  hears,  are  expressions  for  the  sameness  of 
nature  and  the  agreement  of  Father  and  Son.''^  Didym. 
de  Sp.  S.  36.  ^'The  Father's  bidding  is  not  other 
than  His  Word ;  so  that  ^  I  have  not  spoken  of  Myself,^ 
He  perhaps  meant  to  be  equivalent  to  ^  I  was  not  born 
from  Myself.^  For  if  the  Word  of  the  Father  speaks, 
He  pronounces  Himself,  for  He  is  the  Father's  Word,^^ 
&c.  August,  de  Trin.  i.  26.  On  this  mystery  vid. 
Petav.  Trin.  vi.  4. 

IT  Athan.  says  that  it  is  contrary  to  all  our  notions  of 
religion  that  Almighty  God  cannot  create,  enlighten,  ad- 
dress, and  unite  Himself  to  His  creatures  immediately. 
This  seems  to  be  implied  when  it  was  said  by  the  Arians 
that  the  Son  was  created  for  creation,  illumination, 
&c. ;  whereas  in  the  Catholic  view  the  Son  is  simply  that 
Divine  Person,  who  in  tlie  economy  of  grace  is  Creator, 
Enlightener,  &c.    God  is  represented  as  All-perfect,  but 


220 


MEDIATION. 


acting  according  to  a  certain  divine  order.  Here 
tlie  remark  is  in  point  about  the  right  and  wrong 
sense  of  the  words  commanding/^  obeying/^ 
&c. 

Hence  our  Lord  is  the  ^ov\7]crL<^  and  the  /3ov\rjy  and 
^(oaa  ^ovXrjy  of  the  Father.  Orat.  iii.  63  fin.  and  so 
Cyril  Thes.  p.  54,  who  uses  /3ov\rf  expressly,  (as  it  is 
always  used  by  implication,)  in  contrast  to  the  fcara 
^ov\r]aiv  of  the  Arians,  though  Athan.  uses  Kara  to 
^ovXrjjuia,  e.g.  Orat.  iii.  31.  And  so  avro^  rod  irarpo^ 
6eX7]/jia,  Nyss.  contr.  Eunom.  xii.  p.  345. 

^  The  bearing  of  the  above  teaching  of  the  early 
Fathers  on  the  relation  of  the  Second  to  the  First 
Person  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  is  instructively  brought 
out  by  Thomassinus  in  his  work^  de  Incarnatione,  from 
which  I  have  made  a  long  extract  in  one  of  my 
Theological  Tracts  : — part  of  it  I  will  make  use  of 
here. 

^^It  belongs  to  the  Father  to  be  without  birth,  but 
to  the  Son  to  be  born.  Now  innascibility  is  a  prin- 
ciple of  concealment,  but  birth  of  exhibition.  The 
former  withdraws  from  sight,  the  latter  comes  forth  into 
open  day;  the  one  retires  into  itself,  lives  to  itself, 
and  has  no  outward  start;  the  other  flows  forth  and 
extends  itself  and  is  diffused  far  and  wide.  It  corre- 
sponds then  to  the  idea  of  the  Father,  as  being 
ingenerate^  to  be  self-collected,  remote,  unapproach- 
able^ invisible,  and  in  consequence  to  be  utterly  alien 
to  an  incarnation.  But  to  the  Son^  considered  as  once 
for  all  born,  and  ever  coming  to  the  birth,  and  starting 
into  view,  it  especially  belongs  to  display  Himself,  to 


MEDIATION. 


221 


be  prodigal  of  Himself^  to  bestow  Himself  as  an  object 
for  sight  and  enjoyment^  because  in  the  fact  of  being 
born  He  has  burst  forth  into  His  corresponding  act  of 
self-diffusion.  .  .  . 

Equally  .  .  .  incomprehensible  is  in  His  nature  the 
Son  as  the  Father.  Accordingly  we  are  here  con- 
sidering a  personal  property^  not  a  natural.  It  is 
especially  congenial  to  the  Divine  Nature  to  be  good^ 
beneficent,  and  indulgent;  and  for  these  qualities 
there  is  eo  opening  at  all  without  a  certain  manifesta- 
tion of  their  hiding-place,  and  outpouring  of  His 
condescending  Majesty.  Wherefore,  since  the  majesty 
and  goodness  of  God^  in  the  very  bosom  of  His 
nature,  look  different  ways,  and  by  the  one  He  re- 
tires into  Himself,  and  by  the  other  He  pours  Him- 
self out,  it  is  by  the  different  properties  of  the  Divine 
Persons  that  this  contrariety  is  solved,^^  &c.,  &c.  vid. 
Thomassin.  Incarn.  ii.  1,  p.  89^  &c. 


222 


MELETIUS. 


MBLETIUS. 

Meletius  was  Bishop  of  Lycopolis  in  the  Thebais^  in 
the  first  years  of  the  fourth  century.  He  was  convicted 
of  sacrificing  to  idols  in  the  persecation,  and  deposed 
by  a  Council  under  Peter^  Bishop  of  Alexandria  and 
(subsequently)  a  martyr.  Meletius  separated  from  the 
communion  of  the  Church,  and  commenced  a  schism ; 
at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council  it  included  as  many 
as  twenty-eight  or  thirty  Bishops ;  in  the  time  of 
Theodoret,  a  century  and  a  quarter  later,  it  included  a 
number  of  monks.  Though  not  heterodox,  they  sup- 
ported the  Arians  on  their  first  appearance,  in  their 
contest  with  the  Catholics.  The  Council  of  Nicaea, 
instead  of  deposing  their  Bishops,  allowed  them  on 
their  return  a  titular  rank  in  their  sees,  but  for- 
bade them  to  exercise  their  functions. 

^  The  Meletian  schismatics  of  Egypt  formed  an 
alliance  with  the  Arians  from  the  first.  Athan.  imputes 
the  alliance  to  ambition  and  avarice  in  the  Meletians, 
and  to  zeal  for  their  heresy  in  the  Arians.  Ep.  j^g. 
22,  vid.  also  Hist,  Arian.  78.  In  like  manner  after 
Sardica  the  Semi- Arians  attempted  a  coalition  with  the 
Donatists  of  Africa.    Aug.  contr.  Cresc.  iii.  34  (n.  38). 

%  Bpiphanius  gives  us  another  account  of  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  Meletius's  schism  originated. 

^  There  was  another  Meletius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in 
the  latter  part  of  the  same  century.  He  at  one  time 
belonged  to  the  Semi- Arian  party,  but  joined  the  ortho- 
dox, and  was  the  first  president  of  the  second  Ecu- 
menical Council. 


TWO  NATURES  OF  EMMANUEL. 


223 


TWO  NATURES  OF  EMMANUEL. 

^  Two  natures/^  says  S.  Leo^  met  together  in 
our  Redeemer,  and,  while  what  belonged  to  each  re- 
spectively remained,  so  great  a  nnity  was  made  of  either 
substance,  that  from  the  time  that  the  Word  was  made 
flesh  in  the  Blessed  Yirgin^s  womb,  we  may  neither 
think  of  Him  as  God  without  that  which  is  man,  nor  as 
man  without  that  which  is  God.  Each  nature  certifies 
its  own  reality  under  distinct  actions,  but  neither  of 
them  disjoins  itself  from  connection  with  the  other. 
Nothing  is  wanting  from  either  towards  other ;  there 
is  entire  littleness  in  majesty,  entire  majesty  in  little- 
ness ;  unity  does  not  introduce  confusion,  nor  does  what 
is  special  to  each  divide  unity.  There  is  what  is 
passible,  and  what  is  inviolable,  yet  He,  the  Same,  has 
the  contumely  whose  is  the  glory.  He  is  in  infirmity 
who  is  in  power;  the  Same  is  both  the  subject  and 
the  conqueror  of  death.  God  then  did  take  on  Him 
whole  man,  and  so  knit  Himself  into  man  and  man  into 
Himself  in  His  mercy  and  in  His  power,  that  either 
nature  was  in  other,  and  neither  in  the  other  lost  its 
own  attributes.^^  Serm.  54,  1.  Suscepit  nos  in 
suam  proprietatem  ilia  natura,  quao  nec  nostris  sua, 
nec  suis  nostra  consumeret,^^  &c.  Serm.  72,  p.  286.  vid. 
also  Ep.  165,  6.  Serm.  30,  5.  Cyril.  Cat.  iv.  9.  Amphi- 
loch.  ap.  Theod.  Eran.  i.  p.  66,  also  pp.  60,  87,  88. 

^  All  this  belongs  to  the  Economy,  not  to  the 
Godhead.    On  this  account  He  says,  ^  Now  is  My  soul 


224 


TWO  NATURES  OP  EMMANUEL. 


troubled/  ....  so  troubled  as  to  seek  for  a  release^  if 

escape  were  possible  As  to  hunger  is  no  blame, 

nor  to  sleep,  so  is  it  none  to  desire  the  present  life. 
Christ  had  a  body  pure  from  sins,  but  not  exempt  from 
physical  necessities,  else  it  had  not  been  a  body.^^ 
Chrysosfc.  in  Joann.  Hom.  67,  1  and  2.  He  used  His 
own  flesh  as  an  instrument  for  the  works  of  the  flesh, 
and  for  physical  infirmities  and  for  other  infirmities 
which  are  blameless,^^  &c.     Cyril,  de  Rect.  Fid.  p.  18. 

As  a  man  He  doubts,  as  a  man  He  is  troubled ;  it  is 
not  His  power  (virtus)  that  is  troubled,  not  His 
Godhead,  but  His  soul,^^  &c.  Ambros.  de  Fid.  ii.  n. 
56.  Yid.  a  beautiful  passage  in  S.  Basil's  Hom.  iv.  5 
(de  Divers.),  in  which  he  insists  on  our  Lord^s  having 
wept  to  show  us  how  to  weep  neither  too  much  nor 
too  little. 

Being  God,  and  existing  as  Word,  while  He  re- 
mained what  He  was,  He  became  flesh,  and  a  child, 
and  a  man,  no  change  profaning  the  mystery.  The 
Same  both  works  wonders,  and  sufl'ers ;  by  the 
miracles  signifying  that  He  is  what  He  was,  and 
by  the  suS'erings  giving  proof  that  He  had  be- 
come what  He  had  framed.^^  Procl.  ad  Armen. 
p.  615.  Without  loss  then  in  what  belongs  to 
either  nature  and  substance  (salva  proprietate,  and 
so  TertuUian,  Salva  est  utriusque  proprietas  substan- 
ti93,^^  &c.,  in  Prax.  27),  yet  with  their  union  in  one 
Person,  Majesty  takes  on  it  littleness,  Power  infirmity. 
Eternity  mortality,  and,  to  pay  the  debt  of  our  estate, 
an  inviolable  Nature  is  made  one  with  a  nature  that  is 
passible ;  that,  as  was  befitting  for  our  cure.  One  and 


TWO  NATURES  OF  EMMANUEL. 


225 


the  Same  Mediator  between  God  and  man^  the  man 
Jesus  Christy  might  both  be  capable  of  death  from  the 
one,  and  incapable  from  the  other. "'^  Leo^s  Tome 
(Ep.  28,  3),  also  Hil.  Trin.  ix.  11  fin.  Vagit  infans, 
sed  in  coelo  est/^  &c._,  ibid.  x.  54.  Ambros.  de  Fid. 
ii.  77.  Erat  vermis  in  cruce  sed  dimittebat  peccata. 
Non  habebat  speciem,  sed  plenitudinem  divinitatis/^ 
&c.  Id.  Epist.  i.  46,  n.  5.  Theoph.  Ep.  Pasch.  6,  ap. 
Cone.  Ephes.  p.  1404.  Hard. 

IT  Athanasius,  Orat.  iv.  §  33,  speaks  of  the  Word  as 

putting  on  the  first-fruits  of  our  nature,  and  being 
blended  {avaKpaOhs:)  with  it ;  vid.  note  on  TertulL 
Oxf.  Tr.  vol.  i.  p.  48  ;  and  so  77  Kaivrj  06o<;  fcal 

avOpcdiro^,  Greg.  Naz.  as  quoted  by  Eulogius  ap.  Phot. 
Bibl.  p.  857 ;      immixtus,^^  Cassian.  Incarn.  i.  5 ; 

commixtio,^^  ^igil-  contr.  Eutych.  i.  4,  p.  494  (Bibl. 
Patr.  1624)  ;  permixtus,^'  August.  Ep.  137,  11;  ^^ut 
naturae  alteri  altera  misceretur,^^  Leon.  Serm.  23,  1 
(vid.  supr.  p.  134).  There  is  this  strong  passage  in 
Naz.  Ep.  101,  p.  87  (ed.  1840),  /apva/jievcov  coairep 
Tcov  (f>va€cov,  ovTco  Srj  koI  tcov  KXTjaecov,  koX  Trepcx^copovacou 
eh  aXXr^Xa?  tm  Xoycp  rrj^;  avjjLc^via^ ;  Bull  says  that  in 
using  irepLx^povaoyv  Greg.  Naz.  and  others  miniis 
proprie  loqui.''^  Defens.  F.  N.  iv.  4,  §  14.  Petavius  had 
allowed  this,  but  proves  the  doctrine  intended  amply 
from  the  Fathers.  De  Incarn.  iv.  14.  Such  oneness  is 
not  confusion,^'  for  ov  avy')(yaiv  aTrepyaad/jLevo^;,  dWa 
rd  Svo  Kepdaa<^  et?  ev,  says  Epiph.  Ancor.  81  fin.  and 
so  Eulog.  ap.  Phot.  Bibl.  p.  831  fin.  ov  t?}?  Kpdaeco^; 
avyxyaip  avrw  8rjXov(77]<; .  Vid  also  on  the  word  ijll^l^, 
&c.  Zacagn.  Monum.  p.  xxi. — xxvi.  Thomassin.  de 
Incarn.  iii.  5,  iv.  15. 

VOL.  II.  Q 


226 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OP  ORTHODOXY. 

What  were  the  cardinal  additions^  made  at  Nicaea^ 
to  the  explicit  faith  of  the  Church,  will  be  understood 
by  comparing  the  Creed,  as  there  recorded  and  sanc- 
tioned, with  that  of  Eusebius,  as  they  both  are  found 
(vol.  i.  supr.  pp.  55 — 57)  in  his  Letter  to  his  people.  His 
Creed  is  distinct  and  unexceptionable,  as  far  as  it  goes ; 
but  it  does  not  guard  against  the  introduction  of  the 
Arian  heresy  into  the  Church,  nor  could  it,  as  being  a 
creed  of  the  primitive  age,  and  drawn  up  before  the 
heresy.  On  the  other  hand,  we  see  by  the  anathe- 
matisms  appended  to  the  Nicene  Creed  what  it  was 
that  had  to  be  excluded,  and  by  the  wording  of  the 
additions  to  the  Creed,  and  by  Eusebius's  forced  expla- 
nation of  them,  how  they  acted  in  effecting  its  exclusion. 
The  following  are  the  main  additions  in  question  : — 

1.  The  Creed  of  Eusebius  says  of  our  Lord,  iic 
Tov  TTaTpo<^  yeyevvTj/jLevov ;  but  the  Nicene  says,  yevrj- 
Oevra  ov  TroiTjOevra,  because  the  Arians  considered 
generation  a  kind  of  creation,  as  Athan.  says,  Orat.  ii. 
§  20,  Ye  say  that  an  offspring  is  the  same  as  a  work, 
writing  ^  generated  or  made."'  And  more  distinctly, 
Arius  in  his  Letter  to  Eusebius  uses  the  words,  irplv 
jevvrjO^  7]T0t  KTLadfi  rj  opcaOrj  rj  Oe/jbeXtcoOrj.  Theodor. 
Hist.  i.  4,  p.  750.  And  to  Alexander,  d'x^povo)^  yevvrjdeU 
Koi  irpo  alcopcov  KTiadel^  koX  defjueXccodei^^,    De  Syn.  §  16. 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY.  227 


And  Eusebius  to  Paulinus,  ktlcttov  kol  deaeXtoyrov  koI 
j€vvr]r6v.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  5,  p.  752.  These  dijfferent 
words  profess  to  be  scriptural,  and  to  explain  each 
other  ;  created  being  in  Prov.  viii.  22  ;  made  in 
the  speech  of  St.  Peter,  Acts  ii.  22  ;  appointed  or 
declared  in  Rom.  i.  4;  and  founded or  ^^esta- 
blished in  Prov.  viii.  23  ;  vid.  Orat.  ii.  §  72,  &c.,  vid. 
also  §  52. 

2.  We  read  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  from  the  Father, 
that  is,  from  the  substance  of  the  Father,'^  whereas 
in  Eusebius^s  Letter  it  is  only  God  from  God."" 
According  to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
all  rational  beings,  and  in  one  sense  all  beings 
v/hatever,  are  from  God,^^  over  and  above  the  fact  of 
their  creation,  and  in  a  certain  sense  sons  of  God,  vid. 
supr.  Arian  tenets,  Adam,  and  Eusebius.  And  of  this 
undeniable  truth  the  Arians  availed  themselves  to  ex- 
plain away  our  Lord^s  proper  Sonship  and  Divinity. 

3.  But  the  chief  test  at  Nic^a  was  the  word 
ofioovdiov,  its  special  force  being  that  it  excludes  the 
maintenance  of  more  than  one  divine  ovdia  or  substance, 
which  seems  to  be  implied  or  might  be  insinuated  even 
in  Eusebius^s  creed  ;  We  believe,^'  he  says,  each  of 
these  [Three]  to  be  and  to  exist,  the  Father  truly 
Father,  the  Son  trulu  Son,  the  Holy  Ghost  truly  Holy 
Ghost ;  for  if  there  be  Three  substances  or  res  exist- 
ing, either  there  are  Three  Gods  or  two  of  them  are 
not  God.  The  ovala'^,  important  and  serviceable  as 
it  was,  did  not  exclude  the  doctrine  of  a  divine  emana- 
tion, and  was  consistent  with  Semi-Arianism,  and  with 
belief  in  two  or  in  three  substances;  vid.  the  art. 

Q  2 


228 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


oixoovGLov,  It  is  the  precision  of  this  phrase/^  says 
Athan._,  that  detects  their  pretence,  whenever  they 
use  the  phrase  ^  from  God/  and  that  excludes  all  the 
subtleties  with  which  they  seduce  the  simple.  For, 
whereas  they  contrive  to  put  a  sophistical  construction 
on  all  other  words  at  their  will,  this  phrase  only,  as 
detecting  their  heresy,  do  they  dread,  which  the  Fathers 
did  set  down  as  a  bulwark  against  their  impious 
speculations  one  and  all,^^  de  Syn.  §  45.  And  Epipha- 
nius  calls  it  avvZecr [lo'^  iricneco^,  Ancor.  6.  And  again 
he  says,  Without  the  confession  of  the  ^  One  in 
substance  ^  no  heresy  can  be  refuted ;  for  as  a  serpent 
hates  the  smell  of  bitumen,  and  the  scent  of  sesame- 
cake,  and  the  burning  of  agate,  and  the  smoke  of 
storax,  so  do  Arius  and  Sabellius  hate  the  notion  of  the 
sincere  profession  of  the  ^  One  in  substance."*  And 
Ambrose,  That  term  did  the  Fathers  set  down  in  their 
formula  of  faith,  which  they  perceived  to  be  a  source 
of  dread  to  their  adversaries ;  that  they  themselves 
might  unsheathe  the  sword  which  cut  off  the  head  of 
their  own  monstrous  heresy. de  Fid.  iii.  15. 

This  is  very  true,  but  a  question  arises  whether  another 
and  a  better  test  than  the  homousion  might  not  have 
been  chosen,  one  eliciting  less  opposition,  one  giving 
opportunities  to  fewer  subtleties ;  and  on  this  point  a 
few  words  shall  be  said  here. 

Two  ways,  then,  lay  before  the  Fathers  at  Nicaea  of 
condemning  and  eliminating  the  heresy  of  Arius,  who 
denied  the  proper  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God.  By 
means  of  either  of  the  two  a  test  would  be  secured  for 
guarding  the  sacred  truth  from  those  evasive  profes- 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


229 


sions  and  pretences  of  orthodoxy^  which  Arius  himself, 
to  do  him  justice,  did  not  ordinarily  care  to  adopt. 
Our  Lord's  divinity  might  be  adequately  defined  either 
(1)  by  declaring  Him  to  be  in  and  of  the  essence  of 
the  Father,  or  (2)  to  be  with  the  Father  from  ever- 
lasting, that  is,  by  defining  Him  to  be  either  consub- 
stantial  or  co-eternal  with  God.  Arius  had  denied 
both  doctrines ;  He  is  not  eternal,^^  he  says,  or 
co-eternal,  or  co-ingenerate  with  the  Father,  nor  has 
He  His  being  together  with  Him.''^  And  The  Son 
of  God  is  not  consubstantial  with  God.*^^  Syn.  §  15, 
16  (vid.  also  Epiph.  Haer.  69,  7).  Either  course  then 
would  have  answered  the  purpose  required :  but  the 
Council  chose  that  which  at  first  sight  seems  the  less 
advisable,  the  more  debatable  of  the  two;  it  chose 
the  Homoiision  or  Consubstantial/^  not  the 
Co-eternal. 

Here  it  is  scarcely  necessary  to  dwell  on  a  state- 
ment of  Gibbon,  which  is  strange  for  so  acute  and 
careful  a  writer.  He  speaks  as  if  the  enemies  of  Arius 
at  Nicaea  were  at  first  in  a  difficulty  how  to  find  a  test 
to  set  before  the  Council  which  might  exclude  him 
from  the  Church,  and  then  accidentally  became  aware 
that  the  Homoiision  was  such  an  available  term.  He 
says  that  in  the  Council  a  letter  was  publicly  read 
and  ignominiously  torn,  in  which  the  Arian  leader, 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  mgcnuoitsli/  confessed  that 
the  admission  of  the  Homoiision,  a  word  already 
familiar  to  the  Platonists,  was  incompatible  with  the 
principles  of  his  theological  system.  The  fortunate 
opportunitij  was  eagerly  embraced  by  the  bishops  who 


230  THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


governed  the  resolutions  of  the  Synod/'^  &c.,  ch.  xxi. 
He  adds  in  a  note,  We  are  indebted  to  Ambrose  (vid. 
de  Fid.  iii.  15,)  for  the  knowledge  of  this  curious 
anecdote/^  This  comes  of  handling  theological  sub- 
jects with  but  a  superficial  knowledge  of  them ;  it  is 
the  way  in  which  foreigners  judge  of  a  country  which 
they  enter  for  the  first  time.  Who  told  Gibbon  that 
Arius^s  enemies  and  the  governing  bishops  did  not 
know  from  the  first  of  the  Arian  rejection  of  this  word 

consubstantial  ?  who  told  him  that  there  were  not 
other  formulae  which  Arius  rejected  quite  as  strongly 
as  it,  and  which  would  have  served  as  a  test  quite  as 
well  ?  As  I  have  quoted  above,  he  had  publicly  said, 
^^The  Son  is  not  equal,  no,  nor  consubstantial  with 
God,^^  and  Foreign  to  the  Son  in  substance  is  the 
Father;"  and,  as  to  matter  already  provided  by  him 
for  other  tests,  he  says  in  that  same  Thalia,  When 
the  Son  was  not  yet,  the  Father  was  already  God;^^ 

Equal,  or  like  Himself,  He  [the  Father]  has 
none^^  (vid.  Syn.  §  15),  &c.,  &c.  S.  Ambrose  too  was 
not  baptised  till  a.d.  374,  a  generation  after  the 
Nicene  Council,  and  his  report  cannot  weigh  against 
contemporary  documents;  nor  can  his  words  at  that 
later  date  receive  Gibbon's  interpretation.  It  was  not 
from  any  dearth  of  tests  that  the  Fathers  chose  the 
Homoiision;  and  the  question  is,  why  did  they  prefer 
it  to  avvaihiov,  avap^ov,  a^ev7]T0Vy  &c.,  &c.  ? 

The  first  difficulty  attached  to  consubstantial 
was  that  it  was  not  in  Scripture,  which  would  have  been 
avoided  had  the  test  chosen  been     from  everlasting,^^ 

without  beginning,^^  &c.;  a  complaint,  however,  which 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


231 


came  with  a  bad  grace  from  the  Arians^  who  had  begun 
the  controversy  with  phrases  of  their  own  devising^ 
and  not  in  Scripture.  But,  if  the  word  was  not  Scrip- 
tural, it  had  the  sanction  of  various  Fathers  in  the 
foregoing  centuries,  and  was  derived  from  a  root,  6  oiz^, 
which  was  in  Scripture.  Nor  could  novelty  be  objected 
to  the  word.  Athanasius,  ad  Afros  6,  speaks  of  the 
use  of  the  word  ojjuoovcnov  by  ancient  Bishops,  about 
130  years  since; and  Eusebius,  supr.  Deer.  App.  §  7, 
confirms  him  as  to  its  ancient  use  in  the  Church  :  and, 
though  it  was  expedient  to  use  the  words  of  Scripture 
in  enunciations  of  revealed  teaching,  it  would  be  a 
superstition  in  the  Council  to  confine  itself  to  them,  as 
if  the  letter  could  be  allowed  to  supersede  the  sense. 

A  more  important  difficulty  lay  in  the  fact  that  some 
fifty  or  sixty  years  before,  in  the  Councils  occasioned 
by  the  heretical  doctrine  of  Paulus,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
the  word  had  actually  been  proposed  in  some  quarter 
as  a  tessera  against  his  heresy,  and  then  withdrawn  by 
the  Fathers  as  if  capable  of  an  objectionable  sense. 
Paulus,  who  was  a  sharp  disputant,  seems  to  have  con- 
tended that  the  term  either  gave  a  material  character 
to  the  Divine  nature,  or  else,  as  he  wished  himself 
to  hold,  that  it  implied  that  there  was  no  real  distinc- 
tion of  Persons  between  Father  and  Son.  Anyhow, 
the  term  was  under  this  disadvantage,  that  in  some 
sense  it  had  been  disowned  in  the  greatest  Council 
which  up  to  the  Nicene  the  Church  had  seen.  But  its 
inexpedience  at  one  time  and  for  one  purpose  was  no 
reason  why  it  should  not  be  expedient  at  another 
time  and  for  another  purpose,  and  its  imposition  at 


232 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


Nicaea  showed  by  the  event  that  it  was  the  fitting 
word^  and  justified  those  who  selected  it.  But  true  as 
this  is,  still  the  question  recurs  why  it  was  that  the 
Nicene  Fathers  selected  a  term  which  was  not  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  had  on  a  former  occasion  been  considered  open 
to  objection,  while  against  co-eternal'^  or  ^^from  ever- 
lasting no  opposition  could  have  been  raised  short  of 
the  heretical  denial  of  its  trath;  and  further,  whether 
it  was  not  rather  a  test  against  Tritheism,  of  which 
Arius  was  not  suspected.  Consubstantial  was  a  word 
needing  a  definition ;     co-eternal  ^'  spoke  for  itself. 

Arius,  it  is  true,  had  boldly  denied  the  consubstan- 
tial,^^ but  he  had  still  more  often  and  more  pointedly 
denied  the  co-eternal.^^  The  definition  of  the  Son's 
eternity  a  parte  ante  would  have  been  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  heresy.  Arius  had  said  on  starting, 
according  to  Alexander,  that  God  was  not  always  a 
Father  ^^the  Word  was  not  always.'''  He  said,^^ 
says  Socrates,  if  the  Father  begot  the  Son,  he  that 
was  begotten  had  a  beginning  of  existence/^  Arius 
himself  says  to  his  friend  Eusebius,  Alexander  has 
driven  us  out  of  our  city  for  dissenting  from  his  public 
declaration,  ^  As  God  is  eternal,  so  is  His  Son.'' 
Again,  to  Alexander  himself,  as  quoted  supr.,  ^^The 
Son  is  not  eternal,  or  co-eternal,  or  co-ingenerate  with 
the  Father.''  Vid.  also  Deer.  §  6.  Would  it  not, 
then,  have  avoided  all  the  troubles  which,  for  a  long 
fifty  or  sixty  years,  followed  upon  the  reception  of  the 
Homoiision  by  the  Nicene  Council,  would  it  not  have 
been  a  far  more  prudent  handling  of  the  Creed  of 
the  Church,  to  have  said     begotten  from  everlasting^ 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


233 


not  made/^  instead  of  introducing  into  it  a  word  of 
doubtful  meaning,  already  discredited^  and  at  best 
unfamiliar  to  Catholics  ?  This  is  what  may  be  asked, 
and,  with  a  deep  feeling  of  our  defective  knowledge  of 
the  ecclesiastical  history  of  the  times,  I  answer,  under 
correction,  as  follows  : — 

There  are  passages,  then,  in  the  writers  of  the 
Ante-Nicene  times  which  suggest  to  us  that  the 
leading  bishops  in  the  Council  were  not  free  to  act  as 
they  might  wish,  or  as  they  might  think  best,  and 
that  the  only  way  to  avoid  dangerous  disputes  in  an 
assemblage  of  men  good  and  orthodox,  but  jealous 
in  behalf  of  their  own  local  modes  of  thought  and  ex- 
pression and  traditional  beliefs,  was  to  meet  with  the 
utmost  caution  a  heresy  which  all  agreed  to  condemn, 
which  all  aimed  at  destroying.  So  it  was,  that  various 
writers,  some  of  them  men  of  authority  and  influence, 
and  at  least  witnesses  to  the  sentiments  of  their  day, 
had,  in  the  course  of  the  three  centuries  past,  held  the 
doctrine  of  the  temporal  gennesis,  a  doctrine  which 
afterwards  gave  an  excuse  and  a  sort  of  shelter  to  the 
Arian  misbelief.  (Vid.  supr.  art.  Avians,  3.)  I  am  not 
denying  that  these  men  held  with  the  whole  Catholic 
Church  that  our  Lord  was  in  personal  existence  from 
eternity  as  the  Word,  connatural  with  the  Father,  and 
in  His  bosom  ;  but  they  also  held,  with  more  or  less 
distinctness,  that  He  was  not  fully  a  Son  from  eternity, 
but  that  when,  according  to  the  Divine  counsels,  the 
creation  was  in  immediate  prospect,  and  with  reference 
to  it,  the  Word  was  born  into  Sonship,  and  became  the 
Creator,  the  Pattern,  and  the  Conservative  Power  of  all 


234 


THE  NICENE  TESTS  OF  ORTHODOXY. 


that  was  created.  These  writers  were  such  as  Tatian, 
Theophilus,  TertulHan,  and  Hippolytus ;  and  if  the 
Fathers  of  the  Nicene  Council  had  defined  uncon- 
ditionally and  abruptly  the  Son^s  eternity,  they  would 
have  given  an  opening  to  the  Arians,  who  disbelieved 
in  the  eternity  of  the  Personal  Word,  to  gain  over  to 
their  side,  and  to  place  in  opposition  to  the  Alexandrians, 
many  who  substantially  were  orthodox  in  their  belief. 
They  did  not  venture  then,  as  it  would  seem,  to  pro- 
nounce categorically  that  the  gennesis  was  from  ever- 
lasting, lest  they  should  raise  unnecessary  questions  : — 
at  the  same  time,  by  making  the  consubstantial  the 
test  of  orthodoxy,  they  provided  for  the  logical  and 
eventual  acceptance  of  the  Son's  a  parte  ante  eternity, 
on  the  principle,  (which  Athan.  is  continually  insisting 
on,)  What  God  is,  that  He  ever  was ;  and,  by  in- 
cluding among  the  parties  anathematised  at  the  end  of 
the  Creed  those  who  said  that  our  Lord  ^  was  not  in 
being  before  He  was  born,^  they  both  inflicted  an 
additional  blow  upon  the  Arians,  and  indirectly 
recognised  the  orthodoxy,  and  gained  the  adhesion,  of 
those  who,  by  speaking  of  the  temporal  gennesisy 
seemed  at  first  sight  to  ascribe  to  our  Lord  a  beginning 
of  being. 


OMNIPRESENCE    OF  GOD. 


235 


OMNIPRESENCE  OP  GOD. 

^  Athan.  says,  Deer.  §  11,  Men  being  incapable 
of  self-existence,  are  inclosed  in  place,  and  consist  in 
the  Word  of  God ;  but  God  is  self-existent,  inclosing 
all  things,  and  inclosed  by  none, — within  all  according 
to  His  own  goodness  and  power,  yet  outside  all  in  His 
own  nature.'^  Vid.  also  Incarn.  §  17.  This  contrast  is 
not  commonly  found  in  ecclesiastical  writers,  who  are 
used  to  say  that  God  is  present  everywhere,  in  sub- 
stance as  well  as  by  energy  or  power.  Clement,  how- 
ever, expresses  himself  still  more  strongly  in  the  same 
way:  In  substance  far  off  (for  how  can  the  generate 
come  close  to  the  Ingenerate  ?),  but  most  close  in 
power,  in  which  the  universe  is  embosomed/^  Strom, 
ii.  2,  but  the  parenthesis  explains  his  meaning.  Vid. 
Cyril.  Thesaur.  6,  p.  44.  The  common  doctrine 
%of  the  Pathers  is,  that  God  is  present  everywhere  in 
substance,  Yid.  Petav.  de  Deo,  iii.  8  and  9.  It  may 
be  remarked  that  S.  Clement  continues,  neither 
inclosing  nor  inclosed.'^ 

H  Athan.,  however,  explains  himself  in  Orat.  iii.  22, 
saying  that  when  our  Lord,  in  comparing  the  Son 
and  creatures,  uses  the  word  ^  as,^  He  signifies  those 
who  become  from  afar  as  He  is  in  the  Father ;  .  .  for 
in  place  nothing  is  far  from  God,  but  only  in  nature 
all  things  are  far  from  Him/^     When,  then,  he  says 


236 


OMNIPRESENCE    OF  GOD. 


outside  all  in  His  nature/^  he  must  mean  as  here 
^^far  from  all  things  considered  in  His  nature/^  He 
says  here  distinctly,  in  place  nothing  is  far  from 
God/^  S.  Clement,  loc.  cit.,  gives  the  same  expla- 
nation, as  above  noticed.  It  is  observable  that  the 
Tract  Sab.  Greg,  (which  the  Benedictines  consider 
not  Athan.^s)  speaks  as  Athan.  does  supr.,  ^^not  by 
being  co-extensive  with  all  things,  does  God  fill  all ; 
for  this  belongs  to  bodies,  as  air;  but  He  comprehends 
all  as  a  power,  for  He  is  an  incorporeal,  invisible  power, 
not  encircling,  not  encircled.^^  10.  Eusebius  says  the 
same  thing,  Deum  circumdat  nihil,  circumdat  Deus 
omnia  non  corporaliter ;  virtute  enim  incorporali  adest 
omnibus,^^  &c.  De  Incorpor.  i.  init.  ap.  Sirm.  Op. 
t.  i.  p.  68.  Vid.  S.  Ambros.  Quomodo  creatura  in  Deo 
esse  potest/^  &c.    de  Fid.  i.  16. 


PAUL  OF  SAMOSATA. 


237 


PAUL   OP  SAMOSATA. 

Mention  of  this  Paul  and  of  his  sect  is  frequently 
made  by  Athan.  There  is  some  difficulty  in  determining 
what  his  opinions  were.  As  far  as  the  fragments  of 
the  Antiochene  Acts  state  or  imply^  he  taught,  more 
or  less,  as  follows  : — that  the  Son^s  pre-existence  was 
only  in  the  divine  foreknowledge,  Routh.  Rell.  t.  2, 
p.  466;  that  to  hold  His  substantial  pre-existence  was 
to  hold  two  Gods,  ibid.  p.  467  ;  that  He  was,  if  not  an 
instrument,  an  impersonal  attribute,  p.  469 ;  that  His 
manhood  was  not  ^^unalterably  made  one  with  the 
Godhead,''  p.  473 ;  that  the  Word  and  Christ  were 
not  one  and  the  same,''  p.  474;  that  Wisdom  was  in 
Christ  as  in  the  prophets^  only  more  abundantly,  as  in 
a  temple ;  that  He  who  appeared  was  not  Wisdom, 
p.  475;  in  a  word,  as  it  is  summed  up,  p.  484,  that 
Wisdom  was  born  with  the  manhood,  not  substan- 
tially, but  according  to  quality."  vid.  also  p.  476,  485. 
All  this  plainly  shows  that  he  held  that  our  Lord's 
personality  was  in  His  Manhood,  but  does  not  show 
that  he  held  a  second  personality  as  being  in  His 
Godhead;  rather  he  considered  the  Word  impersonal, 
though  the  Fathers  in  Council  urge  upon  him  that  he 
ought  with  his  views  to  hold  two  Sons,  one  from 
eternity,  and  one  in  time,  p.  485. 

Accordingly  the  Synodal  Letter  after  his  deposition 


238 


PAUL  OF  SAMOSATA. 


speaks  of  him  as  holding  that  Christ  came  not  from 
heaven^  but  from  beneath.  Buseb.  Hist.  vii.  30.  S. 
Athanasius^s  account  of  his  doctrine  is  altogether  in 
accordance^  (vid.  vol.  i.  supr.  p.  25^  note  1^)  viz.,  that 
Paul  taught  that  our  Lord  was  a  mere  man,  and  that 
He  was  advanced  to  His  Divine  power,  etc  7rpoK07r7]<;. 

However,  since  there  was  much  correspondence 
between  Paul  and  Nestorius,  (except  in  the  doctrine 
of  the  personality  and  eternity  of  the  Word,  which  the 
Arian  controversy  determined  and  the  latter  held,)  it 
was  not  unnatural  that  reference  should  be  made  to 
the  previous  heresy  of  Paul  and  its  condemnation 
when  that  of  Nestorius  was  on  trial.  Yet  the  Oon- 
testatio  against  Nestorius  which  commences  the  Acts 
of  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  Harduin.  Cone.  t.  i.  p.  1272, 
and  which  draws  out  distinctly  the  parallel  between 
them,  says  nothing  to  show  that  Paul  held  a  double 
personality.  And  though  Anastasius  tells  us,  Hodeg. 
c.  7,  p.  108,  that  the  ^^holy  Ephesian  Council  showed 
that  the  tenets  of  Nestorius  agreed  with  the  doctrine 
of  Paul  of  Samosata,^^  yet  in  c.  20,  p.  323,  4,  he  shows 
us  what  he  means,  by  saying  that  Artemon  also  before 
Paul  divided  Christ  in  two.^^  Ephrem  of  Antioch 
too  says  that  Paul  held  that  the  Son  before  ages  was 
one,  and  the  Son  in  the  last  time  another,^^  ap.  Phot, 
p.  814;  but  he  seems  only  referring  to  the  words  of 
the  Antiochene  Acts,  quoted  above.  Again,  it  is 
plain  from  what  Vigilius  says  in  Eutych.  t.  v.  p.  731, 
Ed.  Col.  1618,  (the  passage  is  omitted  in  Ed.  Par. 
1624,)  that  the  Eutychians  considered  that  Paul  and 
Nestorius  differed ;  the  former  holding  that  our  Lord 


PAUL  OF  SAMOSATA. 


239 


was  a  mere  man,  the  latter  a  mere  man  only  till  He 
was  united  to  the  Word.    And  Marius  Mercator  says, 

Nestorius  circa  Verbum  Dei,  non  ut  Paulus  sentit,  qui 
non  substantivum,  sed  prolatitium  potentige  Dei  eflScax 
Yerbum  esse  definit/^  Part  2,  p.  17.  Ibas,  and  Theo- 
dore of  Mopsuestia,  though  more  suspicious  witnesses, 
say  the  same.  Vid.  Facund.  vi.  3,  iii.  2,  and  Leontius 
de  Sectis,  iii.  p.  504.  To  these  authorities  may  be 
added  Nestorius's  express  words,  Serm.  12,  ap.  Mar. 
Merc.  t.  2,  p.  87,  and  Assemani  takes  the  same  view, 
Bibl.  Orient,  t.  4,  p.  68,  9. 

The  principal  evidence  in  favour  of  PauPs  Nesto- 
rianism  consists  in  the  Letter  of  Dionysius  to  Paul  and 
his  answer  to  Paul's  Ten  Questions,  which  are  certainly 
spurious,  as  on  other  grounds,  so  on  some  of  those 
urged  against  the  professed  Creed  of  Antioch,  (in  my 

Theol.  Tracts,^^)  but  which  Dr.  Burton  in  his  excellent 
remarks  on  PauPs  opinions,  Bampton  Lectures,  Note 
102,  admits  as  genuine.  And  so  does  the  accurate  and 
cautious  Tillemont,  who  in  consequence  is  obliged  to 
believe  that  Paul  held  Nestorian  doctrines;  also  Bull, 
Fabricius,  Natalis  Alexander,  &c.  In  holding  these 
compositions  to  be  certainly  spurious,  I  am  following 
Valesius,  Harduin,  Montfaucon,  Pagi,  Mosheim,  Cave, 
Kouth,  and  others. 


240        PERSONAL  ACTS  AND  OFFICES  OF  OUR  LORD. 


PERSONAL  ACTS  AND  OFFICES  OF  OUR 
LORD. 

There  are  various  (and  those  not  the  least  prominent 
and  important)  acts  and  offices  of  our  Lord^  which^ 
as  involving  the  necessity  of  both  His  natures  in  con- 
currence and  belonging  to  His  Person,  may  be  said  to 
be  either  OeavSpt/ca  (vid.  art.  under  that  heading),  or 
instances  of  avrihoai^^  ISicojUbaTcov  (vid.  also  art.  on  it). 
Such  are  His  office  and  His  acts  as  Priest,  as  Judge,  &c., 
in  which  He  can  be  viewed  neither  as  simply  God,  nor 
as  simply  man,  but  in  a  third  aspect,  as  Mediator,  the 
two  natures  indeed  being  altogether  distinct,  but  the 
character,  in  which  He  presents  Himself  to  us  by  the 
union  of  these  natures,  belonging  rather  to  His  Person, 
which  is  composite. 

IT  Athanasius  says,  Orat.  ii.  §  16,  Since  we  men 
would  not  acknowledge  God  through  His  Word,  nor 
serve  the  Word  of  God  our  natural  Master,  it  pleased 
God  to  show  in  man  His  own  Lordship,  and  so  to 
draw  all  men  to  Himself.  But  to  do  this  by  a  mere 
man  beseemed  not ;  lest,  having  man  for  our  Lord,  we 
should  become  worshippers  of  man.  Therefore  the 
Word  Himself  became  flesh,  and  the  Father  called 
His  Name  Jesus,  and  so  ^  made  ^  Him  Lord  and  Christ, 
as  much  as  to  say,  ^  He  made  Him  to  rule  and  to 
reign,^  that  while  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  whom  ye 


PERSONAL  ACTS  AND  OFFICES  OF  OUR  LORD.  241 


crucified^  every  knee  bows^  we  may  acknowledge  as 
Lord  and  King  both  the  Son  and  through  Him  the 
Father."'^  Here  the  renewal  of  mankind  is  made  to  be 
the  act^  primarily  indeed  of  the  Word^  our  natural 
Master,  but  not  from  Him^  as  such^  simply^  but  as 
given  to  Him  to  carry  out  by  the  Father,  when  He 
became  incarnate,  by  virtue  of  His  Persona  composita, 

^  He  says  again  that,  though  none  could  be  a 
beginning  of  creation,  who  was  a  creature,  yet  still 
that  such  a  title  belongs  not  to  His  essence.  It  is  the 
name  of  an  office  which  the  Eternal  Word  alone  can 
fill.  His  Divine  Sonship  is  both  superior  and  ne- 
cessary to  that  office  of  a  Beginning/^  Hence  it  is 
both  true  (as  he  says)  that  if  the  Word  is  a  creature. 
He  is  not  a  beginning ;  and  yet  that  that  begin- 
ning is  in  the  number  of  the  creatures/"*  Though 
He  becomes  the  beginning/^  He  is  not  a  beginning 
as  to  His  substance;  vid.  Orat.  ii.  §  60,  where  he  says, 
^^He  who  is  before  all,  cannot  be  a  beginning  of  all, 
but  is  other  than  all.'^  He  is  the  beginning  in  the 
sense  of  Archetype. 

%  And  so  again  of  His  Priesthood  (vid.  art.  upon  it), 
the  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  He  is  Priest,  neither  as 
God  nor  as  man  simply,  but  as  being  the  Divine  Word 
in  and  according  to  His  manhood. 

T  Again  S.  Augustine  says  of  judgment :  He 
judges  by  His  divine  power,  not  by  His  human,  and 
yet  man  himself  will  judge,  as  ^  the  Lord  of  Glory  ^  was 
crucified.''^  And  just  before,  He  who  believes  in  Me, 
believes  not  in  that  which  he  sees,  lest  our  hope 
should  be  in  a  creature,  but  in  Him  who  has  taken 

VOL.  II.  R 


242         PERSONAL  ACTS  AND  OFFICES  OF  OUR  LORD. 


on  Him  the  creature,  in  whicli  He  might  appear  to 
human  eyes/'  Trin.  i.  27,  28. 

^  And  so  again  none  but  the  Eternal  Son  could  be 
nrpcoTOTOKo^,  yet  He  is  so  called  only  when  sent,  first  as 
Creator,  and  then  as  Incarnate.  Orat.  ii.  §  64. 

^  The  phrase  \6709,  fi  \6yo<;  eari,  is  frequent  in 
Athan.,  as  denoting  the  distinction  between  the  Word's 
original  nature  and  His  offices,  vid.  Orat.  i.  §  43,  44, 
47,  48.  ii.  §  8,  74.  iii.  §  38,  39,  41,  44,  52.  iv.  §  23. 


PHILOSOPHY. 


243 


PHILOSOPHY. 

Athan.  says^  speaking  of  a^evvr^rov,  I  am  told  the 
word  has  different  senses.*^    Deer.  §  28. 

And  so  de  Syn.  §  46^  we  have  on  careful  inquiry 
ascertained/'  &c.  Again^  I  have  acquainted  myself 
on  their  account  [the  Arians']  with  the  meaning  of 
6r^evr]TovJ^  Orat.  i.  §  30.  This  is  remarkable^  for 
Athan.  was  a  man  of  liberal  education.  In  the  same 
way  S.  Basil,  whose  cultivation  of  mind  none  can 
doubt,  speaks  slightingly  of  his  own  philosophical 
knowledge.  He  writes  of  his  neglecting  his  own 
weakness,  and  being  utterly  unexercised  in  such 
disquisitions  ;  contr.  Eunom.  init.  And  so  in  de  Sp.  S. 
n.  5,  he  says,  that  they  who  have  given  time  to 
vain  philosophy,  divide  causes  into  principal,  co- 
operative,^^ &c.  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  having  ex- 
pended much  time  on  vanity,  and  wasted  nearly  all 
his  youth  in  the  vain  labour  of  pursuing  the  studies  of 
that  wisdom  which  God  has  made  foolishness.^^  Ep. 
223,  2.  In  truth  Christianity  has  a  philosophy  of  its 
own.  Thus  at  the  commencement  of  his  Viaa  Dux, 
Anastasius  says,  It  is  a  first  point  to  be  understood 
that  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church  does  not 
proceed  upon,  or  follow,  the  philosophical  definitions 
in  all  respects  of  the  Greeks,  and  especially  as  regards 
the  mystery  of  Christ  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 

K  2 


244 


PHILOSOPHY. 


but  a  certain  rule  of  its  own^  evangelical  and  apos- 
tolical ;  p.  20.  In  like  manner,  Damascene,  speaking 
of  the  Jacobite  use  of  (pvaL^  and  v7r6(TTaai<;,  says,  Who 
of  holy  men  ever  thus  spoke  ?  unless  ye  introduce  to 
us  your  St.  Aristotle  as  a  thirteenth  Apostle,  and  pre- 
fer the  idolater  to  the  divinely  inspired.''^  contr.  Jacob. 
10,  p.  399  j  and  so  again  Leontius,  speaking  of  Philo- 
ponus,  who  from  the  Monophysite  confusion  of  nature 
and  hypostasis  was  led  into  Tritheism.  He  thus 
argued,  taking  his  start  from  Aristotelic  principles ; 
for  Aristotle  says  that  there  are  of  individuals  particu- 
lar substances  as  well  as  one  common.^^  de  Sect.  v.  fin. 
^  What  our  Fathers  have  delivered,^^  says  Athan., 
this  is  truly  doctrine;  and  this  is  truly  the  token  of 
doctors,  to  confess  the  same  thing  with  each  other,  and 
to  vary  neither  from  themselves  nor  from  their  fathers; 
whereas  they  who  have  not  this  character,  are  not  to 
be  called  true  doctors  but  evil.  Thus  the  Greeks,  as 
not  witnessing  to  the  same  doctrines,  but  quarrelling 
one  with  another,  have  no  truth  of  teaching ;  but  the 
holy  and  veritable  heralds  of  the  truth  agree  together, 
not  differ.  For  though  they  lived  in  different  times, 
yet  they  one  and  all  tend  the  same  way,  being  pro- 
phets of  the  one  God,  and  preaching  the  same  Word 
harmoniously.^^   Deer.  §  4. 

S.  Basil  says  the  same  of  the  Grecian  Sects : 
We  have  not  the  task  of  refuting  their  tenets,  for 
they  suffice  for  the  overthrow  of  each  other."  Hexaem. 
i.  2.  vid.  also  Theod.  Graec.  Affect,  i.  p.  707,  &c. 
August.  Civ.  Dei.  xviii.  41.  and  Vincentius's  celebrated 
Commonitorium  passim. 


PRIESTHOOD  OF  CHRIST. 


245 


PRIESTHOOD  OP  CHRIST. 

The  expressions  He  became  and  He  luas  made,^^  says 
Athanasius,  on  Hebr.  iii.  2,  (vid.  Orat.  ii.  §  8^)  must 
not  be  understood  as  if  the  Word^  considered  as  the 
Word,  were  made,  (vid.  art.  Personal  Acts,  &c._,)  but 
because  tbe  Word^  being  Framer  of  all,  afterwards  was 
made  High  Priest,  by  putting  on  a  body  which  was 
made.^^ 

^  In  a  certain  true  sense  our  Lord  may  be  called 
a  Mediator  before  He  became  incarnate,  but  the  Arians, 
even  Eusebius,  seem  to  have  made  His  mediatorship 
consist  essentially  in  His  divine  nature,  instead  of 
holding  that  it  was  His  office,  and  that  He  was  made 
Mediator  when  He  came  in  the  flesh.  Eusebius,  like 
Philo  and  the  Platonists,  considers  Him  as  made  in 
the  beginning  the  Eternal  Priest  of  the  Father .^^ 
Demonst.  v.  3.  de  Laud.  C.  p.  503  fin.  an  inter- 
mediate divine  power/^  p.  525,  '^mediating  and  joining 
generated  substance  to  the  Ingenerate,^^  p.  528. 

IT  The  Arians  considered  that  our  Lord^s  Priesthood 
preceded  His  Incarnation,  and  belonged  to  His  Divine 
Nature,  and  was  in  consequence  the  token  of  an  in- 
ferior divinity.  The  notice  of  it  therefore  in  Heb.  iii. 
1,  2,  did  but  confirm  them  in  their  interpretation  of  the 
words  made,  &c.  For  the  Arians,  vid.  Epiph.  Haer. 
69,  37.    Eusebius  too  had  distinctly  declared,  ^^Qui 


246 


PEIESTHOOD  OF  CHRIST. 


videbatur^  erat  agnus  Dei ;  qui  occultabatur  sacerdos 
Dei/^  advers.  Sabell.  i.  p.  2,  b.  vid.  also  Demonst.  i.  10^ 
p.  38,  iv.  16,  p.  193,  V.  3,  p.  223,  vid.  contr.  Marc, 
pp.  8  and  9,  66,  74,  95.  Even  S.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
makes  a  similar  admission,  Catech.  x.  14.  Nay,  S. 
Ambrose  calls  tbe  Word,  plenum  justitise  sacerdota- 
lis,^^  defag.  Saec.  3,  14.  S.  Clement  Alex,  before  them 
speaks  once  or  twice  of  the  X6709  ap%Aepei)9,  e.g. 
Strom,  ii.  9  fin.  and  Philo  still  earlier  uses  similar  lan- 
guage, de  Profug.  p.  466  (whom  S.  Ambrose  follows), 
de  Somniis,  p.  597.  vid.  Thomassin.  de  Incarn.  x.  9. 
Nestorius  on  the  other  hand  maintained  that  the  Man 
Christ  Jesus  was  the  Priest ;  Cyril  adv.  Nest.  p.  64. 
And  Augustine  and  Fulgentius  may  be  taken  to  coun- 
tenance him,  de  Consens.  Evang.  i.  6,  and  ad  Thrasim. 
iii.  30.  The  Catholic  doctrine  is,  that  the  Divine 
Word  is  Priest  in  and  according  to  His  manhood,  vid. 
the  parallel  use  of  itp(ot6toko<;  infr.  art.  in  voc.  As  He 
is  called  Prophet  and  even  Apostle  for  His  humanity,^^ 
says  S.  Cyril  Alex.,  so  also  Priest.''^  Glaph.  ii.  p.  58. 
And  so  Epiph.  loc.  cit.  Thomassin.  loc.  cit.  makes  a 
distinction  between  a  divine  Priesthood  or  Mediator- 
ship,  such  as  the  Word  may  be  said  to  sustain  between 
the  Father  and  all  creatures,  and  an  earthly  and  sacri- 
ficial for  the  sake  of  sinners,  vid.  also  Huet.  Origenian. 
ii.  3,  §  4,  5. 


PKIVATE  JUDGMENT  ON  SCRIPTURE. 


247 


PEIVATE  JUDGMENT  ON  SCRIPTURE. 

(Vid.  art.  Bide  of  Faith,) 

The  two  phrases  by  whicli  Atliai:.  denotes  private 
judgment  on  religious  matters^  and  his  estimate  of  it^ 
are  ra  Ihua  and  a  rjOekov,  e.g. 

^  Laying  down  their  private  (rr/z^  Ihiav)  impiety 
as  some  sort  of  rule  (o)?  Kavova  nva,  i.e.  as  a  Rule  of 
Faith),  they  wrest  all  the  divine  oracles  into  accord- 
ance with  it.^^  Orat.  i.  §  52.  And  so  I'^icov  KaicovotoyVy 
Orat.  ii.  §  18.  raZ?  lhlaL<=;  fjbu9o7r\aaTLai<;,  Orat.  iii. 
§  10,  and,  ^^they  make  the  language  of  Scripture  their 
pretence ;  but,  instead  of  the  true  sense,  sowing  upon 
it  (Matt.  xiii.  25,  vid.  art.  eV/crTre^pa?)  the  private  (roi/ 
lSlov)  poison  of  their  heresy. Orat  i.  §  53.  And  so, 
Kara  top  lSlov  vovp.  Orat.  i.  §  37.  rrjv  ISlav  aae/Seiav. 
iii.  §  55.  And,  He  who  speaketh  of  his  own,  ifc  rcoi/ 
ISlcov,  speaketh  a  lie.^^  contr.  Apoli.  i.  fin. 

^  And  so  other  writers  :  "  They  used  to  call  the 
Church  a  virgin,^^  says  Hegesippus,  for  it  was  not 
yet  defiled  by  profane  doctrines  .  .  .  the  Simonists, 
Dosithians,  &c.  .  .  .  each  privately  {l8l(o<;)  and  sepa- 
rately has  brought  in  a  private  opinion.''^  ap.  Euseb. 
Hist.  iv.  22.  Ruffinus  says  of  S.  Basil  and  S. 
Gregory,  Putting  aside  all  Greek  literature,  they 
are  said  to  have  passed  thirteen  years  together 
in  studying  the  Scriptures  alone,  and  followed  out 


248 


PRIVATE  JUDGMENT  ON  SCEIPTURE. 


tlieir  sense,  not  from  their  jprivate  opinion,  but  by  the 
writings  and  authority  of  the  Fathers/^  &c.  Hist.  ii. 
9.  Sophronius  at  Seleucia  cried  oufc^  ^^If  to  publish 
day  after  day  our  own  private  {ISlav)  willj  be  a 
profession  of  faith^  accuracy  of  truth  will  fail  us/^ 
Socr.  ii.  40. 

We  must  not  make  an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures, 
nor  take  up  a  position  for  the  fight,  in  which  victory  can- 
not be,  or  is  doubtful,  or  next  to  doubtful.  For  though 
this  conflict  of  Scripture  with  Scripture  did  not  end  in 
a  drawn  battle,  yet  the  true  order  of  the  subject  re- 
quired that  that  should  be  laid  down  first,  which  now 
becomes  but  a  point  of  debate,  viz.  who  have  a  claim 
to  the  faith  itself,  whose  are  the  Scriptures/^  TertuU. 
de  Prsescr.  19.  Seeing  the  Canon  of  Scripture  is 
perfect,  &c.,  why  need  we  join  unto  it  the  authority 
of  the  Churches  understanding  and  interpretation  ? 
because  the  Scripture  being  of  itself  so  deep  and 
profound,  all  men  do  not  understand  it  in  one  and 
the  same  sense,  but  so  many  men,  so  many  opinions 
almost  may  be  gathered  out  of  it;  for  Novatian  ex- 
pounds it  one  way,  Photinus  another,  Sabellius,^^  &c. 
Vincent.  Comm.  2.  Hippolytus  has  a  passage  very 
much  to  the  same  purpose,  contr.  Noet.  9  fin. 

As  to  the  phrase  o)?  ovtol  Oekovai,  vid.  Xeyovre^  firj 
ovTO)<;  .  .  ft)9  77  eK/cXrjcTLa  Krjpvaaei,  aW'  0)9  avroX  Oekovai, 
Orat.  iii.  §  10,  words  which  follow  Ihiai^^  fjuvOoTrkaaTLaL^, 
quoted  just  above.  Vid.  also  iii.  §  8  and  17.  This 
is  a  common  phrase  with  Athan.  0)9  idiXrjo-ev,  airep 
edekrfaaVy  orav  OeKcoai,  01)9  e6e\r]aaVi  &c.,  &c.,  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  heretics  being  self-willed  from  first  to 


PRIVATE  JUDGMENT  ON  SCEIPTUEE. 


249 


last.  Vid.  Sent.  Dion.  4  and  16.  Mort.  Ar.  fin.  Apoll. 
ii.  5  init.  ia  contrast  with  the  evayyekiKo^  opo?.  Also 
Deer.  §  3.  Syn.  §  13.  Ep.  Mg.  §  5,  19,  22.  Apol. 
Arian.  §  2,  14,  85,  36,  73,  74,  77.  Apol.  Const.  §  1. 
de  Fug.  §  2,  3,  7.  Hist.  Arian.  §  2,  7,  47,  52,  54,  59, 
60. 

In  like  manner  a  ^ovXovTai,  &c.  Ep.  Enc.  7.  Ap. 
Arian.  §  82,  83.  Ep.  Mg.  §  6.  Apol.  Const.  §  32. 
de  Fug.  §  1.    Hist.  Ar.  15,  18. 


250 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 


THE  RULE  OP  FAITH. 


The  recognition  of  this  rule  is  the  basis  of  St.  Atha- 
nasius^s  method  of  arguing  against  Arianism.  Yid. 
art.  Private  Judgment.  It  is  not  his  aim  ordinarily 
to  jprove  doctrine  by  Scripture^  nor  does  he  appeal  to 
the  private  judgment  of  the  individual  Christian  in 
order  to  determine  what  Scripture  means ;  but  he 
assumes  that  there  is  a  tradition^  substantive,  inde- 
pendent, and  authoritative,  such  as  to  supply  for  us 
the  true  sense  of  Scripture  in  doctrinal  matters — a 
tradition  carried  on  from  generation  to  generation  by 
the  practice  of  catechising,  and  by  the  other  ministra- 
tions of  Holy  Church.  He  does  not  care  to  contend 
that  no  other  meaning  of  certain  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture besides  this  traditional  Catholic  sense  is  possible 
or  is  plausible,  whether  true  or  not,  but  simply  that 
any  sense  inconsistent  with  the  Catholic  is  untrue, 
untrue  because  the  traditional  sense  is  apostolic  and 
decisive.  What  he  was  instructed  in  at  school  and  in 
church,  the  voice  of  the  Christian  people,  the  analogy 
of  faith,  the  ecclesiastical  ^povrjfia,  the  writings  of 
saints;  these  are  enough  for  him.  He  is  in  no  sense 
an  inquirer,  nor  a  mere  disputant ;  he  has  received, 
and  he  transmits.  Such  is  his  position,  though  the 
expressions  and  turn  of  sentences  which  indicate  it  are 
so  delicate  and  indirect,  and  so  scattered  about  his 


THE  KULE  OF  FAITH. 


251 


pages^  that  it  is  difficult  to  collect  them  and  to  analyse 
what  they  imply.  Perhaps  the  most  obvious  proof 
that  what  I  have  stated  is  substantially  true,  is  that  on 
any  other  supposition  he  seems  to  argue  illogicallj^ 
Thus  he  says  :  The  Arians,  looking  at  what  is  human 
in  the  Saviour,  have  judged  Him  to  be  a  creature.  .  .  . 
But  let  them  learn,  however  tardily,  that  tlie  Word 
became  flesh ;  and  then  he  goes  on  to  show  that  he 
does  not  rely  simply  on  the  inherent,  unequivocal  force 
of  St.  John^s  words,  satisfactory  as  that  is,  for  he 
adds,  Let  us,  as  possessing  tov  gkoitov  tti^  Trcareco^;, 
acknowledge  that  this  is  the  right  {6p6r}v,  orthodox) 
understanding  of  what  they  understand  wrongly.^^ 
Orat.  iii.  §  35. 

Again  :  What  they  now  allege  from  the  Gospels 
they  explain  in  an  unsound  sense,  as  we  may  easily  see 
if  lue  will  hut  avail  ourselves  of  tov  a/coirov  rrj^  Ka&* 
r}/jbd<;  Trlareco^,  and  using  this  tbairep  KavovL,  apply  our- 
selves, as  the  Apostle  says,  to  the  reading  of  inspired 
Scripture. Orat.  iii.  28. 

And  again :  "  Since  they  pervert  divine  Scripture 
in  accordance  with  their  own  private  i^ihiov)  opinion, 
we  must  so  far  [roaovrov)  answer  them  as  {oaov)  to 
justify  its  word,  and  to  show  that  its  sense  is  orthodox, 
opdrivJ'  Orat.  i.  37. 

For  other  instances,  vid.  art.  6p66^ ;  also  vid.  supr. 
vol.  i.  pp.  36,  237  note,  392,  fin.  409;  also  Scrap,  iv. 
§  15,  Gent.  §  6,  7,  and  33. 

%  In  Orat.  ii.  §  5,  after  showing  that  made  is 
used  in  Scripture  for  "  begotten,^^  in  other  instances 
besides  that  of  our  Lord,  ho  says,     Nature  and  truth 


252 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH. 


draw  the  meaning  to  themselves  of  the  sacred  text — 
that  is^  while  the  style  of  Scripture  justifies  us  in  thus 
interpreting  the  word  made/^  doctrinal  truth  obliges 
us  to  do  so.  He  considers  the  Regula  Pidei  the 
principle  of  interpretation,  and  accordingly  he  goes  on 
at  once  to  apply  it. 

^  It  is  his  way  to  start  with  some  general  exposition 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine  which  the  Arian  sense  of  the 
text  in  dispute  opposes,  and  thus  to  create  a  prceju- 
dicium  or  proof  against  the  latter;  vid.  Orat.  i.  10,  38, 
40  init.  53,  ii.  §  12  init.  32—34,  35,  44  init.,  which 
refers  to  the  whole  discussion,  (18 — 43,)  73,  77,  iii.  18 
init.  36  init.  42,  51  init.  &c.  On  the  other  hand 
he  makes  the  ecclesiastical  sense  the  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion, TovTcp  (tc5  aicoircpy  the  general  drift  of  Scripture 
doctrine)  coanrep  icavovi  'x^pTjcrd/juevoL,  as  quoted  just 
above.  This  illustrates  what  he  means  when  he  says 
that  certain  texts  have  a  good,^^  pious,^^  ortho- 
dox sense,  i.e.  they  can  be  interpreted  (in  spite,  if  so 
be,  of  appearances)  in  harmony  with  the  Regula 
Fidei. 

IT  It  is  with  a  reference  to  this  great  principle  that  he 
begins  and  ends  his  series  of  Scripture  passages,  which 
he  defends  from  the  misinterpretation  of  the  Arians. 
When  he  begins,  he  refers  to  the  necessity  of  inter- 
preting them  according  to  that  sense  which  is  not  the 
result  of  private  judgment,  but  is  orthodox.  This,^^ 
he  says,  I  conceive  is  the  meaning  of  this  passage, 
and  that  a  meaning  especially  ecclesiastical.' '  Orat.  i. 
§  44.  And  he  ends  with  :  Had  they  dwelt  on  these 
thoughts,  and  recognised  the  ecclesiastical  scope  as  an 


THE  EULE  OF  FAITH. 


253 


anchor  for  the  faitli^  they  would  not  of  the  faith  have 
made  shipwreck/^   Orat.  iii.  §  58. 

It  is  hardly  a  paradox  to  say  that  in  patristical 
works  of  controversy  the  conclusion  in  a  certain  sense 
proves  the  premisses.  As  then  he  here  speaks  of  the 
ecclesiastical  scope  ^^as  an  anchor  for  the  faith  so 
when  the  discussion  of  texts  began^  Orat.  i.  §  37,  he 
introduces  it  as  already  quoted  by  saying,  Since  they 
allege  the  divine  oracles  and  force  on  them  a  misinter- 
pretation according  to  tlieiv  private  sense,  it  becomes 
necessary  to  meet  them  so  far  as  to  do  justice  to  these 
passages,  and  to  show  that  they  bear  an  orthodox  sense, 
and  that  our  opponents  are  in  error. Again,  Orat.  iii. 
7,  he  says,  What  is  the  difficulty,  that  one  must  need 
take  such  a  view  of  such  passages  ? He  speaks  of 
the  (Tic6iTo<^  as  a  Kavcov  or  rule  of  interpretation, 
supr.  iii.  §  28.  vid.  also  §  29  init.  35  Scrap,  ii.  7. 
Hence  too  he  speaks  of  the  ecclesiastical  sense,^^ 
e.g.  Orat  i.  44,  Scrap,  iv.  15,  and  of  the  (j^povyfjua, 
Orat.  ii.  31  init.  Deer.  17  fin.  In  ii.  §  32,  3,  he  makes 
the  general  or  Church  view  of  Scripture  supersede 
inquiry  into  the  force  of  particular  illustrations. 


254 


SABELLIUS. 


SABELLIUS. 

EusEBius^  Bccles.  TheoL  i.  20,  p.  91^  as  well  as  the 
Macrostich  Confession^  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  106^  says  that 
Sabellius  held  the  Patripassian  doctrine.  Epiph. 
however^  Haer.  p.  398^  denies  it,  and  imputes  the 
doctrine  to  Noetus.  Whatever  Sabellius  taught,  it 
should  be  noticed,  that,  in  the  reason  which  the  Arian 
Macrostich  alleges  against  his  doctrine,  it  is  almost 
implied  that  the  divine  nature  of  the  Son  suffered  on 
the  Cross.  The  Arians  would  naturally  fall  into  this 
notion  directly  they  gave  up  their  belief  in  our 
Lord^s  absolute  divinity.  It  would  as  naturally 
follow  to  hold  that  our  Lord  had  no  human  soul, 
but  that  His  pre-existent  nature  stood  in  the  place 
of  it:  — also  that  His  Priesthood  was  not  dependent 
on  His  Incarnation. 

^  It  is  difficult  to  decide  what  Sabellius^s  doctrine 
really  was ;  nor  is  this  wonderful,  considering  the 
perplexity  and  vacillation  which  is  the  ordinary  con- 
sequence of  abandoning  Catholic  truth.  Also  we  must 
distinguish  between  him  and  his  disciples.  He  is  con- 
sidered by  Eusebius,  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  p.  91,  Patripassian^ 
i.e.  as  holding  that  the  Father  was  the  Son ;  also  by 
Athan.  Orat.  iii.  36  init.  de  Sent.  Dion.  5  and  9.  By 
the  Eusebians  of  the  Macrostich  Creed  ap.  Athan.  de 
Syn.  26  vol.  i.  supr.  By  Basil.  Ep.  210,  5.  By  Ruffin.  in 


SABELLIUS. 


255 


Symb.  5.  By  Augustine  de  Heer.  4L  By  Theodor. 
Hasr.  ii.  9.  And  apparently  by  Origen.  ad  Tit.  t.  4, 
p.  695.  And  by  Cyprian.  Ep.  73.  On  the  other 
hand,  Epiphanius  seems  to  deny  it,  ap.  August.  1.  c. 
and  Alexander^  by  comparing  Sabellianism  to  the  ema- 
nation doctrine  of  Valentinus,  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3, 
p.  743. 

IT  Sabellians^  as  Arians,  denied  that  the  Word  was  a 
substance,  and  as  the  Samosatenes,  who^  according 
to  Epiphanius,  considered  our  Lord  the  internal,  ev- 
hidOeTo^y  Word  and  Thought,  HsBr.  65. 

All  Sabellians,  except  Patripassians,  mainly  differed 
from  Arians  only  at  this  point,  viz.  ivlien  it  was  that 
our  Lord  came  into  being.  Both  parties  considered 
Him  a  creature,  and  the  true  Word  and  Wisdom  but 
attributes  or  energies  of  the  Almighty.  This  Lucifer 
well  observes  to  Constantius,  with  the  substitution 
of  Paulus  and  Photinus  for  Sabellius,  Quid  interesse 
arbitraris  inter  te  et  Paulum  Samosatenum^  vel  eum  tum 
ejus  discipulum  tuum  conscotinum,  nisi  quia  tu  ^ante 
omnia ^  dicas,  ille  vero  ''post  omnia ^  ?  p.  203^  4.  A 
subordinate  difference  was  that  the  Samosatenes,  Pho- 
tinians,  &c.,  considered  our  Lord  to  be  really  gifted 
with  the  true  Word,  whereas  Arians  did  scarcely  more 
than  admit  Him  to  be  formed  after  its  pattern- 

The  Sabellians  agreed  with  the  Arians,  as  far  as 
words  went,  in  considering  the  Logos  as  a  creative 
attribute,  vid.  Sent  D.  25.  Ep.  ^gypt.  14  fin. 
Epiph.  Haer.  72,  p.  835 ;  but  such  of  them  as  held 
that  the  Logos  actually  took  fleshy  escaped  the  mys- 
tery of  God  subsisting   in    Two   Persons,  only  by 


256 


SABELLIUS. 


falling  into  the  heterodox  notion  that  His  nature  was 
compounded  of  substance  and  attribute  or  quality, 
avvOerov  tov  6eov  Ik  iroLorrjro^  /cat  ovala^;.  They  vir- 
tually denied,  with  many  Trinitarians  outside  the 
Church  in  this  day,  that  the  Son  and  again  the  Spirit 
is  0X09  ^609;   but,  if  Each  is  not  0X09  Oeb^,  God  is 

(TVV6€T0<;, 


SANCTIFTCATION. 


257 


SANOTIFICATION. 

Athanasius  insists  earnestly  on  the  merciful  dispen- 
sation of  God,  wlio  has  not  barely  given  us  through 
Christ  justification,  but  has  made  our  sanctification  to 
be  included  in  the  gift,  and  sanctification  through  the 
personal  presence  in  us  of  the  Son.  After  saying, 
Incarn.  §  7,  that  to  accept  mere  repentance  from  sinners 
would  not  have  been  fitting,  evXojov,  he  continues. 
Nor  does  repentance  recover  us  from  our  state  of 
nature,  it  does  but  arrest  the  course  of  sin.  Had 
there  been  but  a  fault  committed,  and  not  a  subse- 
quent corruption^  repentance  had  been  well,  but  if,^^ 
&c.  vid.  Incarnation  and  Freedom, 

While  it  is  mere  man  who  receives  the  gift,  he  is 
liable  to  lose  it  again  (as  was  shown  in  the  case  of 
Adam,  for  he  received  and  he  lost),  but  that  the  grace 
may  be  irrevocable,  and  may  be  kept  sure  by  men, 
therefore  it  is  the  Son  who  Himself  appropriates  the 
gift/'  Orat.  iii.  §  38. 

He  received  gifts  in  order  that  for  His  sake  {hi 
avTov)  men  might  henceforward  upon  earth  have 
power  against  devils,  as  ^  having  become  partakers  of  a 
divine  nature,'  and  in  heaven  might,  as  ^  being  delivered 
from  corruption,'  reign  everlastingly;  .  .  .  and,  whereas 
the  flesh  received  the  gift  in  Him,  henceforth  by  It  for 
us  also  that  gift  might  abide  secure."  Orat.  iii.  §  40. 
VOL.  II.  S 


258 


SANCTIFICATION. 


'^The  Word  of  God,  who  loves  man,  put  on  Himself 
created  flesh,  at  the  Father^s  will,  that,  whereas  the 
first  man  had  made  the  flesh  dead  through  the  trans- 
gression, He  Himself  might  quicken  it  in  the  Blood  of 
His  own  body/^  Orat.  ii.  §  65,  Vid.  also  Orat.  i. 
§  48,  51,  ii.  §  56. 

^  How  could  we  be  partakers  of  the  adoption  of 
sons,  unless  through  the  Son  we  had  received  from 
Him  that  communion  with  Him, — unless  His  Word  had 
been  made  flesh,  and  had  communicated  that  Flesh  to 
us?^^  Iren.  Haer.  iii.  19.  He  took  part  of  flesh  and 
blood,  that  is,  He  became  man,  whereas  He  was  Life 
by  nature,  .  .  .  that,  uniting  Himself  to  the  corruptible 
flesh  according  to  the  measure  of  its  own  nature, 
inefiably  and  inexpressibly,  and  as  He  alone  knows,  He 
might  bring  it  to  His  own  life,  and  render  it  partaker 
through  Himself  of  Grod  and  the  Father.  .  .  .  For  He 
bore  our  nature,  re-fashioning  it  into  His  own  life.  .  .  . 
He  is  in  us  through  the  Spirit,  turning  our  natural 
corruption  into  incorruption,  and  changing  death  to  its 
contrary .^^  Cyril,  in  Joan.  ix.  cir,  fin. 

^  The  Word  having  appropriated  the  afiections  of 
the  flesh,  no  longer  do  those  afi'ections  touch  the  body, 
because  of  the  Word  who  has  come  in  it,  but  they  are 
destroyed  by  Him,  and  henceforth  men  .  .  .  abide 
ever  immortal  and  incorruptible.^^  Orat.  iii.  §  33.  vid. 
also  Incarn.  c.  Ar.  §  12.  contr.  Apoll.  i.  §  17.  ii.  §  6. 

Since  God  the  Word  willed  to  annul  the  passions, 
whose  end  is  death,  and  His  deathless  nature  was  not 
capable  of  them,  ....  He  is  made  flesh  of  the  Virgin  in 
the  way  He  knoweth,^^  &c.  Procl.  ad.  Arnien.  p.  616. 


SANCTIFICATION. 


259 


Also  Leon.  Serm.  22,  pp.  69,  71.  Serm.  26,  p.  88. 
Nyssen.  contr.  ApoU.  t.  2,  p.  696.  Cyril.  Epp.  p.  138,  9. 
in  Joan.  p.  95.    Ohrysol.  Serm.  148. 

%  His  body  is  none  other  than  His,  and  is  a  natural 
recipient  of  grace;  for  He  received  grace  as  far  as 
man^s  nature  was  exalted,  which  exaltation  was  its 
being  deified.^^  Orat.  i.  §  45.  vid.  arts.  Indivelling  and 
Deification. 


s  2 


260 


SCRIPTURE  CANON. 


SCRIPTURE  CANON. 

Athan.  will  not  allow  that  the  Pastor  is  canonical^ 
Deer.  §  18.  In  the  Shepherd  it  is  written,  since 
they  [the  Arians]  allege  this  book  also,  though  it  is 
not  in  the  Canon ;  yet  he  uses  the  formula,  It  is 
written/^ 

And  so  in  Ep.  Pest.  fin.  he  enumerates  it  with 
Wisdom,  Ecclesiasticus,  Esther,  Judith,  Tobit,  and 
others,  ^^not  canonised,  but  appointed  by  the  Pathers 
to  be  read  by  recent  converts  and  persons  under 
teaching.''^  He  calls  it  elsewhere  a  most  profitable 
book.  Incarn.  3. 

^  As  to  the  phrase,  ^^it  is  written,^^  or  ^^he  says,^^ 
TaSe  XeyeCj  the  Douay  renders  such  phrases  by 
^^he,^^  Slo  Xeyet,  'Svherefore  he  saith,^^  Eph.  v.  14; 
€Lpr]K€  irepl  Tr]<^  i^So/jLT)^  ovrco^  ''he  spoke,^^  Heb.  iv. 
4;  and  7,  ''  he  limiteth.^^  And  we  may  take  in  explana- 
tion, ''  As  the  Holy  Ghost  saith,  To-day,^^  &c.  Heb.  iii. 
7.  Or  understand  with  Athan.  Siekey^et  Xejcov  6 
UavXo^*  Orat.  i.  §  57.  w  elrrev  6  ^Icodvvrj^.  Orat.  iii.  §  30. 
vid.  alsoiv.  §  31.  On  the  other  hand,  *^doth  not  the 
Scripture  say,^^  John  vii.  42 ;  ''  what  saith  the  Scrip- 
ture ?  Rom.  iv.  3  j  ''  do  you  think  that  the  Scripture 
saith  in  vain  ?  &c.  James  iv.  5.  And  so  Athan.  olSev  r) 
Oeia  rypacj^rj  \ejovcra.  Orat.  i.  §  56.  e^09  rfj  Oeifi  ypacj)^  .  . 
<pr]crL  Orat.  iv.  §  27.  Xiyec  rj  ypa^r},  Deer.  §  22.  (f)7}alv  rj 
ypa^rjj  Syn.  §  52. 


AUTHORITY  OF  SCRIPTUEE. 


261 


AUTHORITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 

Athanasius  considers  Scripture  sufficient  for  the  proof 
of  sucli  fundamental  doctrines  as  came  into  contro- 
versy during  the  Arian  troubles ;  but^  while  in  con- 
sequence he  ever  appeals  to  Scripture,  (and  indeed  has 
scarcely  any  other  authoritative  document  to  quote,) 
he  ever  speaks  against  interpreting  it  by  a  private 
rule  instead  of  adhering  to  ecclesiastical  tradition. 
Tradition  is  with  him  of  supreme  authority,  including 
therein  catechetical  instruction,  the  teaching  of  the 
schola,  ecumenical  belief,  the  cj^povrj/jLa  of  Catholics,  the 
ecclesiastical  scope,  the  analogy  of  faith,  &c. 

The  holy  and  inspired  Scriptures  are  sufficient  of 
themselves  for  the  preaching  of  the  truth ;  yet  there 
are  also  many  treatises  of  our  blessed  teachers  com- 
posed for  this  purpose. contr.  Gent.  init.  For 
studying  and  mastering  the  Scriptures,  there  is  need 
of  a  good  life  and  a  pure  soul,  and  virtue  according  to 
Christ,^^  Incarn.  57.  Since  divine  Scripture  is  suffi- 
cient more  than  anything  else,  I  recommend  persons 
who  wish  to  know  fully  concerning  these  things,^^  (the 
doctrine  of  the  Blessed  Trinity,)  to  read  the  divine 
oracles,^'  ad  Ep.  JEg,  4.  The  Scriptures  are  suffi- 
cient for  teaching ;  but  it  is  good  for  us  to  exhort 
each  other  in  the  faith,  and  to  refresh  each  other  with 
discourses.''^  Vit.  S.  Ant.  16.        We  must  seek  before 


262 


AUTHORITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


all  things  whether  He  is  Son^  and  on  this  point 
specially  search  the  Scriptures,  for  this  it  was,  when 
the  Apostles  were  questioned,  that  Peter  answered,^^ 
&c.  Orat.  ii.  §  73.  And  passim  in  Athan.  Vid. 
Serap.  i.  32  init.  iv.  fin.  contr.  Apoll.  i.  6,  8,  9,  11, 
22.  ii.  8,  9,  13,  14,  17—19. 

IT  The  doctrine  of  the  Church  should  be  proved, 
not  announced,  {aTroSeL/crtKO)^  ovk  a7ro(f)avTCK(o<; ;)  there- 
fore show  that  Scripture  thus  teaches. Theod.  Eran. 
p.  199.  ^^We  have  learned  the  rule  of  doctrine 
{Kavova)    out   of    divine    Scripture.^^   ibid.   p.  213, 

Do  not  believe  me,  let  Scripture  be  recited.  I 
do  not  say  of  myself  ^  In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word/  but  I  hear  it ;  I  do  not  invent,  but  I  read ; 
what  we  all  read,  but  not  all  understand/^  Ambros. 
de  In  cam.  14.  Non  recipio  quod  extra  Scripturam 
de  tuo  infers/^     TertuU.  Carn.  Christ.  7.  vid.  also  6. 

You  departed  from  inspired  Scripture,  and  therefore 
did  fall  from  grace.''  Max.  de  Trin.  Dial.  v.  29.  The 
Children  of  the  Church  have  received  from  their  holy 
Fathers,  that  is,  the  holy  Apostles,  to  guard  the  faith ; 
and  withal  to  deliver  and  preach  it  to  their  own 
children.  .  .  .  Cease  not,  faithful  and  orthodox  men, 
thus  to  speak,  and  to  teach  the  like  from  the  divine 
Scriptures,  and  to  walk,  and  to  catechise,  to  the  con- 
firmation of  yourselves  and  those  who  hear  you; 
namely,  that  holy  faith  of  the  Catholic  Church,  as  the 
holy  and  only  Virgin  of  God  received  its  custody  from 
the  holy  Apostles  of  the  Lord ;  and  thus,  in  the  case 
of  each  of  those  who  are  under  catechising,  who  are  to 
approach  the  Holy  Bath,  ye  ought  not  only  to  preach 


AUTHORITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


263 


faith  to  your  children  in  the  Lord^  but  also  to  teach 
them  expressly,  as  your  common  mother  teaches^  to 
say  :  ^  We  believe  in  One  God/  &c.  Epiph.  Ancor. 
119^  fin.  who  thereupon  proceeds  to  give  at  length  the 
Niceno-Constantinopolitan  Creed.  And  so  Athan. 
speaks  of  the  orthodox  faith^  as  issuing  from  Aposto- 
lical teaching  and  the  Fathers^  tradition,  and  confirmed 
by  New  and  Old  Testament.^^  ad  Adelph.  6,  init. 
Cyril  Hier.  too,  as  declared  by  the  Church  and  esta- 
blished from  all  Scripture. Cat.  v.  12.        Let  us 

guard  with  vigilance  what  we  have  received  

What  then  have  we  received  from  the  Scriptures  but 
altogether  this  ?  that  God  made  the  world  by  the 
Word/'&c.  &c.  Procl.ad  Armen.  Ep.  2,  p.  612.  That 
God  the  Word,  after  the  union,  remained  such  as  He 
was,  &c.,  so  clearly  hath  divine  Scripture,  and  more- 
over the  doctors  of  the  Churches,  and  the  lights  of  the 
world  taught  us.^^  Theodor.  Eran.  p.  175,  init.  That  it 
is  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers  is  not  the  whole  of  our 
case ;  for  they  too  followed  the  meaning  of  Scripture, 
starting  from  the  testimonies,  which  just  now  we  laid 
before  you  from  Scripture.^^  Basil  de  Sp.  S.  n.  16.  vid. 
also  a  remarkable  passage  in  Athan.  Synod.  §  6,  fin. 
^  S.  Gregory  says  in  a  well  -  known  passage. 
Why  art  thou  such  a  slave  to  the  letter,  and 
takest  up  with  Jewish  wisdom,  and  pursuest  sylla- 
bles to  the  loss  of  things  ?  For  if  thou  wert  to  say, 
^  twice  five,^  or  ^  twice  seven,^  and  I  concluded  ^  ten  ^ 
or  ^  fourteen '  from  your  words,  or  from  '  a  rea- 
sonable mortal  animal  ^  I  concluded  '  man,^  should  I 
seem  to  you  absurd  ?  how  so,  if  I  did  but  give  your 


264 


AUTHORITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


meanino^  ?  for  words  belono*  as  much  to  him  who  de- 
mands  them  as  to  him  who  utters/^  Orat.  31.  24. 
vid.  also  Hil.  contr.  Constant.  16.  August.  Ep.  238, 
n.  4 — 6.  Cyril.  Dial.  i.  p.  391.  Petavius  refers  to  other 
passages,  de  Trin.  iv.  5,  §  6. 

IT  In  interpreting  Scripture,  Athan.  always  assumes 
that  the  Catholic  teaching  is  true,  and  the  Scripture 
must  be  explained  by  it,  vid.  art.  Rule  of  Faith.  Thus 
he  says,  Orat.  ii.  3,  "  If  He  be  Son,  as  indeed  He  is, 
let  them  not  question  about  the  terms  which  the  sacred 
writers  use  of  Him.  .  .  .  For  terms  do  not  disparage 
His  Nature,  but  rather  that  Nature  draws  to  itself 
those  terms  and   changes  them.^^     And  presently, 

Nature  and  truth  draw  the  meaning  to  themselves ; 
this  being  so,  why  ask,  is  He  a  work  ?  it  is  proper  to 
ask  of  them  first,  is  He  a  Son  ?    ii.  5. 

%  The  great  and  essential  difference  between  Catho- 
lics and  non- Catholics  was  that  Catholics  interpreted 
Scripture  by  Tradition,  and  non- Catholics  by  their 
own  private  judgment. 

T[  That  not  only  Arians,  but  heretics  generally,  pro- 
fessed to  be  guided  by  Scripture,  we  know  from 
many  witnesses. 

%  Heretics  in  particular  professed  to  be  guided 
by  Scripture.  TertuU.  Praescr.  8.  For  Gnostics,  vid. 
TertuUian^s  grave  sarcasm,  Utantur  haeretici  omnes 
scripturis  ejus,  cujus  utuntur  etiam  mundo.^^  Carn. 
Christ.  6.  For  Arians,  vid.  supr.  Arian  tenets.  And 
so  Marcellus,  We  consider  it  unsafe  to  lay  down 
doctrine  concerning  things  which  we  have  not  learned 
with  exactness  from  the    divine    Scriptures."  (leg. 


AUTHOEITY  OF  SCRIPTURE. 


265 


irepi  cov  ,  ,  .  irapa  rcov.)  Euseb.  Eccl.  Theol.  p.  177. 
And  Macedonians,  vid.  Leont.  de  Sect.  iv.  init.  And 
Monophysites,  I  liave  not  learned  this  from  Scrip- 
ture; and  I  have  a  great  fear  of  saying  what  it  is 
silent  about. Theod.  Eran.  p.  215.  S.  Hilary  brings 
a  number  of  these  instances  together  with  their  re- 
spective texts,  Marcellus,  Photinus,  Sabellius,  Mon- 
tanus,  Manes ;  then  he  continues,  Omnes  Scripturas 
sine  Scripturas  sensu  loquuntur,  et  fidem  sine  fide 
praetendunt.  Scripturae  enim  non  in  legendo  sunt, 
sed  in  intelligendo,  neque  in  pr^varicatione  sunt  sed 
in  caritate.^^  ad  Const,  ii  9.  vid.  also  Hieron.  c. 
Lucif.  27.    August.  Ep.  120,  13. 


266 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 

^  1.  Gen.  i.  26. — Let  us  make  man/^  &c. 

The  Catholic  Fathers^  as  is  well  known^  interpret 
such  texts  as  this  in  the  general  sense  which  we 
find  taken  above  (vol.  i.  de  Syn.  §  27,  p.  112)  by 
the  first  Sirmian  Council  convened  against  Photinus, 
Marcellus,  &c.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  refer 
to  instances ;  Petavius^  however,  cites  the  following  : 
First,  those  in  which  the  Eternal  Father  is  con- 
sidered in  Gen.  i.  26  to  speak  to  the  Son.  Theo- 
philus,  ad  Autol.  ii.  18.  Novatian,  de  Trin.  26. 
TertuUian,  Prax.  12.  Synod.  Antioch.  contr.  Paul. 
Samos.  ap.  Routh,  Reliqu.  t.  2,  p.  468.  Basil.  Hexaem. 
fin.  Cyr.  Hieros.  Cat.  x.  6.  Cyril.  Alex.  Dial.  iv.  p.  516. 
Athan.  contr.  Gentes,  46.  Orat.  iii.  §  29  fin.  Chrysost.  in 
Genes.  Horn.  viii.  3.  Hilar.  Trin.  iv.  17,  v.  8.  Ambros. 
Hexaem.  vi.  7.  Augustin.  c.  Maxim,  ii.  26,  n.  2.  Next 
those  in  which  Son  and  Spirit  are  considered  as 
addressed.  Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  18.  Basil,  contr. 
Eunom.  v.  4,  p.  315.  Pseudo-Chrysost.  de  Trin. 
t.  i.  p.  832.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  12.  Theodor.  in  Genes. 
19.  Hger.  v.  3,  and  9.  But  even  here,  where  the 
Arians  agree  with  Catholics,  they  difi'er  in  this  re- 
markable respect,  that  in  the  Canons  they  pass  in  their 
Councils,  they  place  certain  interpretations  of  Scripture 
under  the  sanction  of  an  anathema,  showing  how  far 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


267 


less  free  the  system  of  heretics  is  than  that  of  the 
Church. 

^  2.  Gen.  xviii.  1. — The  Lord  appeared  to  Abra- 
ham/^ &c. 

The  same  Sirmian  Council  anathematises  those 
who  say  that  Abraham  saw  not  the  Son^  but  the 
Ingenerate  God.''^ 

This  again,  in  spite  of  the  wording,  which  is 
directed  against  the  Catholic  doctrine,  and  is  of  an 
heretical  implication,  is  a  Catholic  interpretation,  vid. 
(besides  Philo  de  Somniis,  i.  12,  p.  1139,)  Justin.  Tryph. 
56,  and  126.  Iren.  Haer.  iv.  10,  n.  1.  TertuU.  de  Cam. 
Christ.  6.  adv.  Marc.  iii.  9.  adv.  Prax.  16.  Novat.  de 
Trin.  18.  Origen.  in  Gen.  Hom.  iv.  5.  Cyprian,  adv. 
Jud.  ii.  5.  Antioch.  Syn.  contr.  Paul,  apud  Routh^ 
Rell.  t.  2,  p.  469.  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  13.  Epiph.  Ancor. 
29  and  39.  H^r.  71,  5.  Chrysost.  in  Gen.  Hom.  41,  6 
and  7.  These  references  are  principally  from  Petavius  ; 
also  from  Dorschens,  who  has  written  an  elaborate 
commentary  on  this  Council.  The  implication  alluded 
to  above  is,  that  the  Son  is  of  a  visible  substance,  and 
thus  is  naturally  the  manifestation  of  the  Invisible 
God.  Bull  (Uef.  F.  N.  iv.  3)  denies  what  Petavius 
maintains,  that  this  doctrine  is  found  in  Justin,  Origen, 
&c.  The  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  the  Son  manifests 
Himself  (and  thereby  his  Father)  by  means  of 
material  representations.  Augustine  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  who  changed  the  mode  of  viewing  the 
texts  in  question,  and  considered  the  divine  appearance, 
not  God  the  Son,  but  a  created  Angel,  vid.  do  Trin. 


268 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


ii.  passim.  Jansenius  considers  that  lie  did  so  from  a 
suggestion  of  S.  Ambrose^  that  the  hitherto  received 
view  had  been  the  origo  hseresis  Arianae/^  vid.  his 
Augustinus,  lib.  prooem.  c.  12,  t.  2,  p.  12. 

^  3.  Exodus  xxxiii.  23.—''  Thou  shalt  see  My  back, 
but  My  face,^^  &c.  ra  OTTLaoi  fiov,  and  not  to  irpoaodTTov, 
Gregory  Naz.  interprets  to  6ttl(t(o  [oTrLaOia)  to  mean 
God^s  works  in  contrast  with  His  elSo?. 

^  4.  Deut.  xxviii.  66. — ''  Thy  Life  shall  be  hanging 
before  thee.^^ 

Athanasius  says,  ''  His  crucifixion  is  denoted  by 
'  Ye  shall  see  your  Life  hanging.''  Orat.  ii.  16,  supr. 
vol.  i.  p.  270. 

Vid.  Iren.  H^r.  iv.  10,  2.  TertuU.  in  Jud.  11. 
Cyprian.  Testim.  ii.  20.  Lactant.  Instit.  iv.  18. 
Cyril.  Catech.  xiii.  19.  August,  contr.  Faust,  xvi.  22, 
which  are  referred  to  in  loc.  Cypr.  (Oxf.  Tr.)  To 
which  add  Leon.  Serm.  59,  6.  Isidor.  Hisp.  contr. 
Jud.  i.  35,  ii.  6.  Origen.  in  Cels.  ii.  75.  Epiph.  Ha3r. 
24,  p.  75.  Damasc.  F.  0.  iv.  11.  fin.  This  interpre- 
tation I  am  told  by  a  great  authority  is  recommended 
even  by  the  letter,  which  has  n^^ro  Q'»s'?n,  airevavn 
Toov  6(f>6a\fjiwv  aov,  in  Sept.  ''  Pendebit  tibi  a  regione,^^ 
vid.  Gesenius,  who  also  says,  Since  things  which  are  a 
regione  of  a  place,  are  necessarily  a  little  removed  from 
it,  it  follows  that  nilJD  signifies  at  the  same  time  to  be 
at  a  small  distance,^^  referring  to  the  case  of  Hagar, 
who  was  but  a  bow- shot  from  her  child.  Also,  though 
the  word  here  is         yet  n^n  which  is  the  same  root. 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


269 


is  used  for  hanging  on  a  stake,  or  crucifixion,  e.g. 
Gen.  xl.  19.    Deut.  xxi.  22.    Esth.  v.  14;  vii.  10. 

T[  5.  Psalm  xliv.  9.—^^  Therefore  God,  Thy  God,  hath 
anointed  Thee,^^  &c. 

Wherefore,'^  says  Athan.  does  not  imply  reward 
of  virtue  or  conduct  in  the  Word,  but  the  reason  why 
He  came  down  to  us,  and  of  the  Spirit's  anointing 
which  took  place  in  Him  for  our  sakes.  For  he  says 
not,  ^  Wherefore  He  annointed  Thee  in  order  to  Thy 
being  God  or  King  or  Son  or  Word;  ^  for  so  He  was 
before  and  is  for  ever,  as  has  been  shown ;  but  rather, 
^  Since  Thou  art  God  and  King,  therefore  Thou  wast 
anointed,  since  none  but  Thou  couldest  unite  man  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  Thou  the  Image  of  the  Father,  in 
which  we  were  made  in  the  beginning ;  for  Thine  also 
is  the  Spirit.''  .  .  .  That  as  through  Him  we  have  come 
to  be,  so  also  in  Him  all  men  might  be  redeemed  from 
their  sins,  and  by  Him  all  things  might  be  ruled/^ 
Orat.  i.  §  49,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  230. 

The  word  wherefore  denotes  the  fitness  why  the 
Son  of  God  should  become  the  Son  of  man.  His 
Throne,  as  God,  is  for  ever;  He  has  loved  righteous- 
ness; therefore  He  is  equal  to  the  anointing  of  the 
Spirit,  as  man.  And  so  S.  Cyril  in  Joan.  lib.  v. 
2.  ^^In  this  ineffable  unity,^^  says  St.  Leo,  of  the 
Trinity,  whose  words  and  judgments  are  common  in 
all,  the  Person  of  the  Son  has  fitly  undertaken  to 
repair  the  race  of  man,  that  since  He  it  is  by  whom 
all  things  were  made,  and  without  whom  nothing  is 
made,  and  who  breathed  the  truth  of  rational  life  into 


270 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


men  fashioned  of  tlie  dnst  of  the  earth,  so  He  too 
should  restore  to  its  lost  dignity  our  nature  thus  fallen 
from  the  citadel  of  eternity,  and  should  be  the  reformer 
of  that  of  which  He  had  been  the  maker/^  Leon. 
Serm.  64,  2.  vid.  Athan.  de  Incarn.  7  fin.  10.  In  illud 
Omn.  2.  Cyril,  in  Gen.  i.  p.  13. 

^  6.  Prov.  viii.  22.— ''The  Lord  created  Me  in  the 
beginning  of  His  ways,  for  His  works. "'^ 

The  long  and  beautiful  discourse  left  us  by 
Athanasius  on  the  First-born  and  His  condescension, 
may  be  said  to  have  grown  out  of  what  must  be 
considered  a  wrong  reading  of  this  verse,  created  for 
possessed^  eKnae  for  e/cryaaro  being  the  Septuagint 
translation  of  the  Hebrew  njp,  as  also  in  Gen.  xiv. 
19,  22.  Such  too  is  the  sense  of  the  word  given  in 
the  Chaldee,  Syriac,  and  Arabic  versions,  and  the 
greater  number  of  primitive  writers.  In  consequence 
we  find  that  it  was  one  of  the  passages  relied  upon  by 
the  forerunners  of  the  Arians  in  the  3rd  century,  vid. 
supr.  vol.  i.  pp.  45 — 47.  On  the  rise  of  Arianism, 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia  appealed  to  it  against  Alexan- 
der; also  the  other  Eusebius  in  Demonstr.  Evan.  v. 
p.  212,  &c.    It  was  still  insisted  on  in  a.d.  350. 

On  the  other  hand,  Aquila  translates  e/crvaaro,  and 
so  read  Basil  c.  Eunom.  ii.  20,  Nyssen  c.  Eunom.  i. 
p.  34,  Jerome  in  Is.  xxvi.  13;  and  the  Vulgate 
translates  jpossedit,  vid.  also  Gen.  iv.  1,  and  Deut. 
xxxii.  8.  The  Hebrew  sense  is  also  recognised  by 
Eusebius,  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  2,  p.  153,  and  Epiph.  Hs&v, 
69,  24. 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


271 


Athanasius^  assuming  the  word  created  to  be  cor- 
rect^ interprets  it  of  our  Lord^s  human  nature^ 
as  do  Epiph.  H^r.  69,  20—25.  Basil.  Ep.  viii.  8. 
Naz.  Orat.  30.  2.  Nyss.  contr.  Eunom.  ut  supr. 
et  al.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  155.  Hilar,  de  Trin.  xii. 
36—49.  Ambros.  de  Fid.  i.  15.  August,  de  Fid. 
et  Symb.  6. 

1"  Our  Lord  is  ap^V  ohchv,  says  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  47, 
fin.  in  contrast  with  His  proper  Sonship;  and  so 
Justin  understands  the  phrase^  according  to  the 
Benedictine  Ed.  vid,  supr.  art.  Indwelling. 

^  7.  Isa.  liii.  7. — He  shall  be  led  as  a  sheep  to 
the  slaughter.^^ 

Athan.  says,  Orat.  i.  §  54,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  234,  as  else- 
where, that  the  error  of  heretics  in  their  interpreta- 
tion of  Scripture  arises  from  their  missing  the  person, 
time,  circumstances,  &c.,  which  Scripture  has  in  view, 
and  which  (as  I  understand  him  to  imply)  Tradition 
(that  is,  the  continuous  teaching  of  the  Church,)  sup- 
plies ;  just  as  the  Jews,  as  regards  Isa.  liii.  instead 
of  learning  from  Philip,  as  he  says,  the  meaning  of  the 
chapter,  conjecture  its  words  to  be  spoken  of  Jeremias 
or  some  other  of  the  Prophets. 

^  The  more  common  evasion  on  the  part  of  the 
Jews  was  to  interpret  the  prophecy  of  their  own 
sufferings  in  captivity.  It  was  an  idea  of  Grotius  that 
the  prophecy  received  a  first  fulfilment  in  Jeremiah, 
vid.  Justin.  Tryph.  72  et  al.  Iren.  H^r.  iv.  33.  Tertull. 
in  Jud.  9.  Cyprian  Testim.  in  Jud.  ii.  13.  Euseb.  Dem. 
iii.  2,  &c. 


272 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


^  8.  Jerem.  xxxi.  22. — The  Lord  hath  created  a 
new  salvation/^  &c. 

This  is  the  Septuagint  version^  as  Athan.  notices 
Expos.  F.  §  3^  AquiWs  being  The  Lord  hath  created 
a  new  thing  in  the  woman.^^  The  Vulgate  (^^  a  new 
thing  upon  the  earth,  a  woman  shall  compass  a  man/^) 
is  with  the  Hebrew.  Athan.  has  preserved  Aquila^s 
version  in  three  other  places,  Ps.  xxx.  12,  lix.  5,  and 
Ixv,  18. 

^  9.  Matt.  i.  25. — And  he  knew  her  not,  until,^^ 
&c.,  that  is,  until  then,  when  it  became  impossible, 
and  need  not  be  denied. 

Supposing  it  was  said,  ^'  He  knew  her  not  till  her 
death,^^  would  not  that  mean,  He  never  knew  her  ? 
and  in  like  manner,  if  she  was  ^Hhe  Mother  of  God,^^ 
it  was  an  impossible  idea,  and  the  Evangelist  would 
feel  it  to  be  so.  They  only  can  entertain  the  idea  who 
in  truth  do  not  believe  our  Lord^s  divinity,  who  do  not 
believe  literally  that  the  Son  of  Mary  is  God.  Vid.  art. 
Mary, 

^  10.  Matt.  iii.  17.— This  is  My  well-beloved  Son,^^ 
aya7rr)T6<^,  &c.  Only-begotten  and  Well-beloved  are 
the  same,^^  says  Athan.  .  .  .  hence  the  Word,  with 
a  view  of  conveying  to  Abraham  the  idea  ^  Only- 
begotten,^  says,  ^  Offer  thy  Son,  thy  Well-beloved.'' 
Orat.  iv.  §  24.  He  adds,  ibid.  iv.  §  29,  The  word 
^Well-beloved^  even  the  Greeks,  who  are  skilful  in 
grammar,  know  to  be  equivalent  with  ^  Only-be- 
gotten/    For   Homer  speaks  thus  of  Telemachus, 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


273 


who  was  the  only-begotten  of  Ulysses^  in  the  second 
book  of  the  Odyssey  : — 

O'er  the  wide  eartli,  dear  youth,  why  seek  to  run, 

An  only  child,  a  well-beloved  son  ?  (/jlovvos  tCdp  dyainjTSs.') 

He  whom  you  mourn,  divine  Ulysses,  fell, 

Far  from  his  country,  where  the  strangers  dwell. 

Therefore  he  who  is  the  only  son  of  his  father  is  called 
well-beloved.'^ 

^AjaTrrjTo^  is  explained  by  /juovoyevr]^  by  Hesy chins, 
Suidas,  and  Pollux;  it  is  the  version  in  the  Sept. 
equally  with  fiovoyevi^^  of  the  Hebrew  "\^^)\  Homer 
calls  Astyanax  'EfcropiSrjv  ayaTrrjrop  ;  Plutarch  notices 
the  instance  of  Telemachus,  '^O/xypof;  dyaTTTjrov  ovofjud^eb 
fjLOvvov  TTjXvyerov,  rovrecrTt  firj  €)(^ovaL  erepov  yovevac 
fjbrjre  e^ovac  yeyevv7]vevov,  as  quoted  by  Wetstein  in 
Matt.  iii.  17.    Vid.  also  Suicer  in  voc. 

IT  11.  Matt.  xii.  32. — ''Whosoever  shall  speak  a 
word/^  &c. 

This  passage^  which  is  commented  on  at  Orat.  i.  §  50, 
Athan.  explains  at  some  length  in  Scrap,  iv.  8,  &c., 
supr.  vol.  i.  p.  231.  Origen,  he  says,  and  Theognostus 
understand  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost  to  be 
apostasy  from  the  grace  of  Baptism,  referring  to  Heb. 
vi.  4.  So  far  the  two  agree ;  but  Origen  went  on  to  say, 
that  the  proper  power  or  virtue  of  the  Son  extends 
over  rational  natures  alone,  e.g.  heathens,  but  that  of 
the  Spirit  only  over  Christians;  those  then  who  sin 
against  the  Son  or  their  reason,  have  a  remedy  in 
Christianity  and  its  baptism,  but  nothing  remains  for 

VOL.  II.  T 


274 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


those  who  sin  against  the  Spirit.  But  Theognostus, 
referring  to  the  text,  I  have  many  things  to  say,  but 
ye  cannot  bear  them  now;  howbeit,  when  He,  the 
Spirit  of  Truth/^  &c.,  argued  that  to  sin  against  the 
Son  was  to  sin  against  inferior  hght,  but  against  the 
Spirit  was  to  reject  the  full  truth  of  the  Gospel. 

^  12.  Matt.  xiii.  25. — His  enemy  came  and  over- 
sowed cockle/^  &c.  eTTLcnreLpa^y  Deer.  §  2.  Orat.  i.  §  1, 
&c.,  &c.  supr.  vol.  i.  pp.  14,  155. 

An  allusion  to  this  parable  is  very  frequent  in 
Athan.,  chiefly  with  a  reference  to  Arianism.  He 
draws  it  out  at  length,  Orat  ii.  §  34.  What  is  sown 
in  every  soul  from  the  beginning  is  that  God  has  a 
Son,  the  Word,  the  Wisdom,  the  Power,  that  is. 
His  Image  and  Radiance;  from  which  it  at  once 
follows  that  He  is  always;  that  He  is  from  the 
Father ;  that  He  is  like ;  that  He  is  the  eternal 
offspring  of  His  substance;  and  there  is  no  idea 
involved  in  these  of  creature  or  work.  But  when 
the  man  who  is  an  enemy,  while  men  slept,  made  a 
second  sowing,  of  ^  He  is  a  creature,^  and  ^  There 
was  once  when  He  was  not,^  and  *  How  can  it  be  ?  ^ 
thenceforth  the  wicked  heresy  of  Christ^s  enemies 
rose,^^  Elsewhere,  he  uses  the  parable  for  the  evil 
influences  introduced  into  the  soul  upon  Adam^s  fall, 
contr.  Apoll.  i.  §  15,  as  does  S.  Irenaaus  Haer.  iv. 
40,  n.  3,  using  it  of  such  as  lead  to  backsliding  in 
Christians,  ibid.  v.  10,  n.  1.  Gregory  Nyssen,  of  the 
natural  passions  and  of  false  reason  misleading  them,  de 
An.  et  Resurr.  t.  ii.  p.  640.  vid.  also  Leon.  Ep.  156,  c.  2. 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


275 


^  Tertullian  uses  the  image  in  a  similar  but  higher 
sense,  when  he  applies  it  to  Eve^s  temptation^  and  goes 
on  to  contrast  it  with  Christ's  birth  from  a  Virgin  : 

In  virginem  adhuc  Evam  irrepserat  verbum  asdifica- 
torium  mortis ;  in  Virginem  ^que  introducendum  erat 
Dei  Verbum  exstructorium  vitae.  .  .  .  Ut  in  doloribus 
pareret,  verbum  diaboli  semen  illi  fuit ;  contra  Maria/^ 
&c.  de  Carn.  Christ.  17.  S.  Leo,  as  Athan.,  makes 
^^seed^^  in  the  parable  apply  peculiarly  to  faith  in 
contrast  with  ohedience,  Serm.  69,  5,  init. 

^13.  John  i.  1. — In  the  beginning-/^  &c.  vid. 
Orat.  i.  §  11,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  167. 

If  beginning  in  this  verse  be  taken,  not  to  im- 
ply time,  but  origination,  then  the  first  verse  of  St. 
John^s  Gospel  may  be  interpreted  In  the  Beginning,^' 
or  Origin,  i.e.  in  the  Father,  was  the  Word.-*^  Thus 
Athan.  himself  understands  the  text.  Orat.  ii.  57. 
Orat.  iv.  §  1.  vid.  also  Orat.  iii.  §  9.  Origen.  in  Joan, 
tom.  1,  1 7.  Method,  ap.  Phot.  cod.  235,  p.  940.  Nyssen. 
contr.  Eunom.  iii.  p.  106.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  32,  p.  312. 
Euseb.  Eccl.  Theol.  ii.  11  and  14,  pp.  118,  123,  and 
Jerome  in  Calmet  on  Ps.  109. 

IF  14.  John  i.  3. — Without  Him  was  nothing 
made  that  was  made.^^  Vid.  Orat.  i.  §  19.  supr.  p. 
179. 

The  words  ^Hhat  was  made^^  which  end  this  verse 
were  omitted  by  the  ancient  citers  of  it,  as  Irenasus, 
Clement,  Origen,  Eusebius,  Tertullian,  nay,  Augustine; 
but  because  it  was  abused  by  the  Eunomians,  Mace- 

T  2 


276 


SCEIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


donians,  &c.^  as  if  derogatory  to  the  divinity  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  it  was  quoted  in  full,  as  by  Bpiphanius, 
Ancor.  75,  who  goes  so  far  as  to  speak  severely  of  the 
ancient  mode  of  citation,  vid.  Fabric,  and  Routh,  ad 
Hippol.  contr.  Noet.  12. 

Also  vid.  Simon.  Hist.  Crit.  Comment,  pp.  7,  32,  52. 
Lampe  in  loc.  Joann.  Fabric,  in  Apocryph.  N.  T.  t.  1,  p. 
384.  Petav.  de  Trin.  ii.  6,  §  6.  Ed.  Ben.  in  Ambros.  de  Fid. 
iii.  6.  Wetstein  in  loc.  Wolf.  Cur.  Phil,  in  loc.  The 
verse  was  not  ended  as  we  at  present  read  it,  especially 
in  the  East,  till  the  time  of  S.  Chrysostom,  according  to 
Simon,  (vid.  Ben.  Praaf.  in  Joann.  §  iv.)  though,  as 
has  been  said  above,  S.  Epiphanius  had  spoken  strongly 
against  the  ancient  reading.  S.  Ambrose  loc.  cit. 
refers  it  to  the  Arians,  Lampe  refers  it  to  the  Valen- 
tinians  on  the  strength  of  Iren.  Hser.  i.  8,  n.  5. 
Theophilus  in  loc.  (if  the  Commentary  on  the  Gospels 
is  his)  understands  by  ovSev  an  idol,^^  referring  to 
1  Cor.  viii.  4.  Augustine,  even  at  so  late  a  date, 
adopts  the  old  reading,  vid.  de  Gen.  ad  lit.  v.  29 — 31. 
It  was  the  reading  of  the  Vulgate,  even  at  the  time  it 
was  ruled  by  the  Council  of  Trent  to  be  authentic,  and 
of  the  Roman  Missal.  The  verse  is  made  to  end  after 
^^in  Him,^^  (thus,  ot'S'  ev  o  ^e^ovev  iv  avroj)  by  Epiph. 
Ancor.  75.  Hil.  in  Psalm.  148,  4.  Ambros.  de  Fid. 
iii.  6.  Nyssen  in  Eunom.  i.  p.  84,  app.,  which  favours 
the  Arians.  The  counterpart  of  the  ancient  reading, 
which  is  very  awkward,  (^^  What  was  made  in  Him 
was  life,")  is  found  in  August,  loc.  cit.  and  Ambrose 
in  Psalm  xxxvi.  35,  but  he  also  notices  "What  was  made, 
was  in  Him/^  de  Fid.  loc.  cit.    It  is  remarkable  that 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


277 


St.  Ambrose  attributes  the  present  panctuation  to  the 
Alexandrians  (in  loc.  Psalm.)  in  spite  of  Athan.^s  and 
Alexander's  (Theod.  Hist.  i.  3^  p.  733),  nay,  CyriPs  (in 
loc.  Joann.)  adoption  of  the  ancient. 

1[  15.  John  ii.  4.—^^  Woman/'  &c.  ''He  chid  His 
Mother/'  says  Athan. 

ETreTfXrjTTe ;  and  so  eireriiJirjcrey  Chrysost.  in  loc.  Joann. 
Hom.  21, 3,  and  Theophyl.  co?  SeaTroTrj^  iTTiTL/jba,  Theodor. 
Eran.  ii.  p.  106.  ivrpeirec,  Anon.  ap.  Corder.  Cat.  in  loc. 
/jL6/jL(f)€Tai,  Alter  Anon.  ibid.  iTTiTi/jia  ovtc  art/jbd^cov  dWa 
htopOovfjievo^,  Euthym.  in  loc.  ovic  eireirXri^ev,  Pseudo- 
Justin.  Quaest.  ad  Orthod.  136.  It  is  remarkable  that 
Athan.  dwells  on  these  words  as  implying  our  Lord's 
humanity,  (i.e.  because  Christ  appeared  to  decline  a 
miracle,)  when  one  reason  assigned  for  them  by  the 
Fathers  is  that  He  wished,  in  the  words  tL  /jlol  KaL  (tol, 
to  remind  our  Lady  that  He  was  the  Son  of  Grod  and 
must  be  ''  in  His  Father's  house."  ''  Repellens  ejus 
intempestivam  festinationem,"  L'en.  H^er.  iii.  16,  n.  7, 
who  thinks  she  desired  to  drink  of  His  cup ;  others 
that  their  entertainer  was  poor,  and  that  sbe  wished 
to  befriend  him.  Nothing  can  be  argued  from  S. 
Athan. 's  particular  word  here  commented  on,  how  he 
would  have  taken  the  passage.  That  the  tone  of  our 
Lord's  words  is  indeed  (judging  humanly  and  speak- 
ing humanly)  cold  and  distant,  is  a  simple  fact,  but 
it  may  be  explained  variously.  It  is  observable  that 
eTnirXrjTTeu  and  iTnTL/xa  are  the  words  used  by  Theo- 
phylact  (in  Joan.  xi.  34,  vid.  infra,  art.  Specialties,) 
for  our  Lord's  treatment  of  His  own  sacred  body. 


278 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


But  they  are  very  vague  words,  and  have  a  strong 
meaning  or  not,  as  the  case  may  be. 

^16.  John  X.  30.—''  I  and  My  Father  are  one.'' 
*^They  contend/'  says  Athan.,  Orat.  iii.  §  10,  supr.  vol. 
i.  p.  369,  ''  that  the  Son  and  the  Father  are  not  in  such 
wise  one  as  the  Church  preaches  .  .  but  that,  since  what 
the  Father  wills,  the  Son  wills  also,  and  .  .  is  in  all 
respects  concordant  [avii^(ovo<^)  with  Him  .  .  .  there- 
fore it  is  that  He  and  the  Father  are  one.  And  some 
of  them  have  dared  to  write  as  well  as  to  say  this,'' 
viz.  Asterius ;  vid.  Orat.  iii.  §  2,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  360. 

We  find  the  same  doctrine  in  the  Creed  ascribed  to 
Lucian,  as  translated  above,  Syn.  §  23,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  97, 
where  vid.  note  2  ;  vid.  also  infra,  art.  o/nocov.  Besides 
Origen,  Novatian,  the  Creed  of  Lucian,  and  (if  so) 
Hilary,  (as  mentioned  in  the  note  at  vol.  i.  p.  97,) 
''  one  "  is  explained  as  oneness  of  will  by  S.  Hippolytus, 
contr,  Noet.  7,  where  he  explains  John  x.  30,  by 
xvii.  22,  like  the  Arians ;  and,  as  might  be  expected, 
by  Eusebius,  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  19,  p.  193,  and  by  Asterius 
ap.  Euseb.  contr.  Marc.  pp.  28,  37.  The  passages  of 
the  Fathers  in  which  this  text  is  adduced  are  collected 
by  Maldonat.  in  loc. 

^  17.  John  X.  30,  38.  xiv.  9.— ''I  and  the  Father  are 
One."  The  Father  is  in  Me,  and,"  &c.  He  that 
seeth  Me,"  &c. 

These  three  texts  are  found  together  frequently  in 
Athan.,  particularly  in  Orat.  iii.,  where  he  considers  the 
doctrines  of  the     Image  "  and  the  Trepcx^prjo-c^; ;  vid. 


SCEIPTUKE  PASSAGES. 


279 


de  Deer.  §  21,  §  31.  de  Syn.  §  45.  Orat.  iii.  3,  5,  6, 
10,  16  fin.  17.  Ep.  Mg.  13.  Sent  D.  26.  ad  Afr.  7,  8, 
9.  vid.  also  Epiph.  Haer.  64,  9.  Basil.  Hexaem.  ix. 
fin.  Cyr.  Thes.  xii.  p.  111.  Potam.  Ep.  ap.  Dacher. 
t.  3,  p.  299.  Hil.  Trin.  vii.  41.  Vid.  also  Animadv.  in 
Eustath.  Ep.  ad  Apoll.  Rom.  1796,  p.  58. 

In  Orat.  iii.  §  5,  these  three  texts,  which  so  often 
occur  together,  are  recognised  as  three ;  ^'  so  are 
they  by  Eusebius,  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  19,  and  he  says  that 
Marcellus  and  those  who  Sabellianise  with  him,^^ 
among  whom  he  included  Catholics,  were  in  the 
practice  of  adducing  them,  OpvWovvre^ ;  which  bears 
incidental  testimony  to  the  fact  that  the  doctrine  of 
the  iTepL')(a>pii(TL^  was  the  great  criterion  between 
orthodox  and  Arian.  To  the  many  instances  of  the 
joint  use  of  the  three  which  are  given  supr.  may  be 
added  Orat.  ii.  54  init.  67  fin.  iv.  17,  Scrap,  ii. 
9,  Serm.  Maj.  de  fid.  29.  Cyril,  de  Trin.  p.  554,  in 
Joann.  p.  168.  Origen,  Periarch.  p.  56.  Hil.  Trin.  ix. 
1.  Ambros.  Hexaem.  vi.  7.  August,  de  Cons.  Ev.  i.  7. 

T[  18.  John  xiv.  28.— The  Father  is  greater  than  I.^' 
Athan.  explains  these  words  by  comparing  them 
with  Made  so  much  better  titan  the  Angels/^  Hebr.  i. 
1.  He  says  not  ^  tlie  Fatlter  is  better  tlian  1/  lest 
we  should  conceive  Him  to  be  foreign  to  His  Nature,^^ 
as  Angels  are  foreign  in  nature  to  the  Son ;  but 
greater,  not  indeed  in  greatness  nor  in  time,  but  be- 
cause of  His  generation  from  the  Father  Himself,^' 
Orat.  i,  §  58,  that  is,  on  account  of  the  ^jrinclpatits  of 
the  Father,  as  the  and  irrj^rj  Oeorrjro^,  and  of  His 

own  Jilietas, 


280 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


%  19.  Acts  X.  36.— ''God  sent  the  word  to  tHe 
cliildren  of  Israel.  .  .  .  You  know  the  word/^  &c. 

So  the  Vulgate,  but  the  received  Greek  runs  with 
Athan.  Orat.  iv.  §  30.  top  \6<yov,  6v  aireareLke  .  .  . 
ovt6(;  ean  .  .  .  vfjiel^  olhare  to  ^evoiJbevov  prjfjia*  The 
followers  of  Paul  of  Samosata,  with  a  view  to  their 
heresy,  interpreted  these  words,  as  Hippolytus  before 
them,  as  if  top  \6yov  were  either  governed  by  /caTa  or 
attracted  by  ov,  outo?  agreeing  with  6  X0709  under- 
stood. Dr.  Routh  in  loc.  Hipp.  (vid.  Noet  13)  who 
at  one  time  so  construed  it,  refers  to  1  Pet.  ii.  7, 
John  iii.  34,  as  parallel,  also  Matt.  xxi.  42.  And 
so  ^Urbem  quam  statuo,^  &c.  vid.  Raphel.  in  Luc. 
xxi.  6.  vid.  also  ttjv  dp'^rjv  otl  koI  XaXto  vfuv,  John 
viii.  25,  with  J.  C.  Wolffs  remarks,  who  would  under- 
stand by  dpxv^  omnino,  which  Lennep  however  in 
Phalar,  Ep.  says  it  can  only  mean  with  a  negative. 
The  Yulgate  is  harsh  in  understanding  X6709  and  prjixa 
as  synonymous,  and  the  latter  as  used  merely  to  con- 
nect the  clauses.  Moreover,  if  \6jo^  be  taken  for 
p7]fjia,  TOP  Xoyop  direorTeCke  is  a  harsh  phrase ;  however, 
it  occurs  Acts  xiii.  26.  If  X6\o^  on  the  other  hand 
has  a  theological  sense,  a  prima  facie  countenance  is 
given  to  the  distinction  between  ''  the  Word and 

Jesus  Christ,^^  which  the  Samosatenes  wished  to 
deduce  from  the  passage. 

IT  20.  Rom.  i.  20.  — His  Eternal  Power  and 
Divinity.^^ 

Athanasius  understands  this  of  our  Lord.  Orat.  i. 
§  11.    Syn.  §  49.  vid.  Justinian^s  Comment,  in  Paul. 


SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


281 


Epp.  for  its  various  interpretations.  It  was  either  a 
received  interpretation,  or  had  been  adduced  at  NicaBa, 
for  Asterius  had  some  years  before  these  Discourses 
replied  to  it,  vid.  Syn.  §  18,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  88,  and 
Orat.  ii.  §  37,  p.  297. 


282 


SEMI-ARTANS. 


SEMI-AKIANS. 

The  Semi-Arian  symbols  admitted  of  an  orthodox 
interpretation^  but  they  also  admitted  of  an  heretical. 
They  served  as  a  shelter  for  virtual  Arians^  and  as  a 
refuge  for  those  who  feared  the  orthodox  homousion, 
as  either  materialistic  or  Sabellian.  In  the  first  years 
of  the  controversy  they  were  tokens  of  a  falling  short 
of  the  true  faith,  in  the  later  years  tokens  of  an  ap- 
proaching to  it.  Hence  Athanasius  is  severe  with  Euse- 
bius  and  Asterius,  and  kind  in  his  treatment  of  Basil 
and  his  party. 

Accordingly,  these  symbols  in  no  way  served  the 
necessity  of  the  time  as  a  test  to  secure  the  Church 
against  a  dangerous  and  insidious  heresy.  Eusebius 
of  Cgesarea  could  have  no  difficulty  in  professing  our 
Lord  was  God,  and  like  in  His  nature  to  the  Father, 
yet  his  heterodoxy  has  been  shown  in  art.  Eusebius. 
Still  more  openly  heterodox  was  Eusebius  of  Nico- 
media;  yet  such  statements  as  occur  in  the  Semi-Arian 
Councils  and  Creeds  would  give  him  no  annoyance. 
These  men  did  but  scruple  at  the  one  word  homousion. 

The  Catholic  Theologians  taught,  with  our  Lord, 
that  He  and  the  Father  are  one  ;  and,  when  asked 
in  what  sense  one,  they  answered  numerically  one, 
else  were  there  two  Gods ;  that  is,  they  were 
6/jLoovaLOi,    The  Arians  considered  them  numerically 


SEMI-AEIANS. 


283 


two^  and  only  in  agreement  one  with  each  other.  Either 
then  they  held  that  there  were  two  Gods,  or  that  our 
Lord  was  God  only  in  name  and  not  true  God.  They 
would  answer  that  that  dilemma  was  none  of  their 
making ;  that  is,  the  idea  of  incomprehensibility  in  the 
Infinite,  and  of  mystery  in  what  was  predicated  of  Him, 
does  not  seem  to  have  had  a  place  in  their  reasonings. 

So  far  Semi-Arians  agreed  with  Arians,  in  holding 
a  greater  God  and  a  less,  a  true  God  and  a  so-called 
God;  a  God  of  all,  and  a  Divine  Mediator  and  repre- 
sentative God;  but  when  Catholics  questioned  them 
more  closely  on  their  belief,  as,  for  instance,  whether 
the  Son  was  a  creature,  and  what  was  meant  by  His 
being  ^Hike^^  the  Father,  the  Arians  proper  said 
boldly  that  He  was  a  creature,  though  the  first  of  crea- 
tures and  unlike  other  creatures,  and  not  the  Son  of 
God  except  figuratively,  as  men  were  His  sons,  and 
that,  moreover,  as  a  creature  He  had  been  liable  to 
fall,  as  the  Angels  fell  and  Adam ;  but  from  such 
blasphemy  others  shrank,  and  thus  in  consequence  they 
were  called  Semi-Arians,  holding  that,  though  our  Lord 
was  not  in  being  from  everlasting,  and  though  He  had 
been  brouofht  into  beino:  at  the  will  of  the  Father, 
still  a  gennesis  was  a  divine  act  in  kind  difi*erent  from 
a  creation  ;  not  indeed  an  emanation,  else.  He  was  not 
only  like,  but  the  same  as  the  Father  in  essence,  and 
if  so,  why  had  Euseb.  Nic.  from  the  first  protested 
against  a7roppoLa<;  and  jiepo^  oyi^oovmov,  and  why  did 
Euseb.  Caos.  so  evidently  evade  the  ovaia^^  (as  shown 
supr.  art.  Eiischiiis)  ?  In  short  they  were  driven  by 
their  remaining  religiousness,  unlike  the  Arians  proper. 


284 


SEMI-ARIANS. 


(who  in  the  later  shape  of  Eunoraianism  expressly  de- 
nied that  God  was  incomprehensible)  into  the  admis- 
sion that  there  was  mystery  in  the  revealed  doctrine. 
And  this  Eusebius  confesses  in  a  passage  which  will 
be  quoted  infr.  art.  Son  of  God, 

Recurring  to  the  dilemma  insisted  on  against 
the  Arian  disputant,  it  will  be  observed  that  the 
clear-headed  Arians  grasped  fearlessly  the  conclusion 
that  our  Lord  was  not  God^  while  the  more  pious 
and  timid  Semi-Arians  could  not  extricate  them- 
selves from  the  charge  of  holding  two  Gods. 

Eusebius  (vid.  art.  Euseb.)  calls  our  Lord  a  second 
substance^  another  God,  a  second  God.  And  it  was  in 
this  sense  his  co-religionists  used  such  epithets  as 
reXeto?  of  our  Lord,  and  called  Him,  as  in  Lucian^s 
creed,  perfect  from  perfect,  king  from  king/^  &c.  viz. 
under  the  impression,  or  with  the  insinuation,  that  the 
ofjioovaiov  diluted  belief  in  His  divinity  into  a  sort 
of  Sabellianism.  Whether  in  giving  these  high  titles 
to  our  Lord,  Eusebius  and  his  party  used  them  in  a 
Catholic  sense,  would  also  be  seen  in  their  use  and 
interpretation  of  the  word  7r€pLX(opr]aL<;,  co-inherence, 
(vid.  art.  Coinherence) ,  which  was  a  practical  equivalent 
to  6jjioov(TLov,  though  it  too  they  could  explain  away, 
and  did.  Accordingly  viewing  Father  and  Son  as 
distinct  substances,  and  rejecting  both  o/moovcnov  and 
irepi'xoyprjaL^j  they  certainly  considered  them,  as  far  as 
words  go,  to  be  distinct  Gods.  Such  strong  expressions 
as  ofjiOLovcrto^,  and  airapaXkafCTo^  eUcoVy  which  they  used, 
would  but  increase  the  evil,  as  Athanasius  argues  against 
them.      If  all  that  is  the  Father's  is  the  Son's,  as  in 


SEMI-AEIANS. 


285 


an  Image  and  Impress/^  he  says^  let  it  be  considered 
dispassionately,  whether  a  substance  foreign  to  the 
Father  s  substance  admits  of  such  attributes ;  and 
whether  such  a  one  can  possibly  be  other  in  nature  and 
alien  in  substance,  and  not  rather  one  in  substance 
v/ith  the  Father/^  Syn.  §  50.  vid.  also  Orat.  iii.  16. 
vid.  art.  Idolatry. 

However,  Athan.,  and  Hilary  too,  saw  enough  of 
what  was  good  and  promising  in  the  second  generation 
of  Semi-Arians  to  adopt  a  kind  tone  towards  them, 
which  they  could  not  use  in  speaking  of  the  followers 
of  Arius.  Athan.  calls  certain  of  them  brethren  and 
^^beloved,^^  and  Hilary  sanctissimi,^^  and  the  events 
in  many  cases  justified  their  anticipation. 

They  guard,  however,  their  words,  lest  more  should 
be  understood  by  others  than  the  language  of  charity 
and  hope.  Athan.  speaks  severely  of  Eustathius 
and  Basil.  Ep.  -^g.  7,  and  Hilary  explains  him- 
self in  his  notes  upon  his  de  Syn.,  from  which  it 
appears  that  he  had  been  expostulated  with  on  his 
conciliatory  tone.  Indeed  all  throughout  he  had  be- 
trayed a  consciousness  that  he  should  offend  some 
parties,  e.g.  §  6.  In  §  77,  he  had  spoken  of  having 
expounded  the  faithful  and  religious  sense  of  ^  like  in 
substance,^  which  is  called  Homociision.^^  On  this  he 
observes,  note  3,  I  think  no  one  need  be  asked  to 
consider  why  I  have  said  in  this  place  ^  relujioiis  sense 
of  like  in  substance,^  except  that  I  meant  that  there 
was  also  an  2?TeZi^ioit6' ;  and  that  therefore  I  said  that 
'  like'  was  not  only  equal  but  the  ^  same.' ''  vid.  also  supr. 
vol.  i.  p.  134,  note.    In  the  next  note  he  speaks  of 


286 


SEMI-ARIANS. 


them  as  not  more  than  hopeful.  Still  it  should  be  ob- 
served how  careful  the  Fathers  of  the  day  were  not  to 
mix  up  the  question  of  doctrine  which  rested  on  Catho- 
lic tradition,  with  that  of  the  adoption  of  a  certain  term 
which  rested  on  a  Catholic  injunction.  Not  that  the  term 
was  not  in  duty  to  be  received,  but  it  was  to  be  received 
mainly  on  account  of  its  Catholic  sense,  and  where 
the  Catholic  sense  was  held,  the  word  might  for  a 
while  by  a  sort  of  dispensation  be  waived.  It  is 
remarkable  that  Athanasius  scarcely  mentions  the 
word  One  in  substance  in  his  three  Orations,  as 
has  been  already  observed;  nor  does  it  occur  in  S. 
CyriPs  Catecheses,  of  whom,  as  being  suspected  of 
Semi-Arianism,  it  might  have  been  required,  before 
his  writings  were  received  as  of  authority.  The  word 
was  not  imposed  upon  XJrsacius  and  Valens,  A.n. 
349,  by  Pope  Julius ;  nor,  in  the  Council  of  Aquileia 
in  381,  was  it  offered  by  St.  Ambrose  to  Palladius 
and  Secundianus.  S.  Jerome's  account  of  the  apology 
made  by  the  Fathers  of  Arminum  is  of  the  same 
kind.  We  thought,^^  they  said,  the  sense  corres- 
ponded to  the  words,  nor  in  the  Church  of  God,  where 
there  is  simplicity,  and  a  pure  confession,  did  we  fear 
that  one  thing  would  be  concealed  in  the  heart,  an- 
other uttered  by  the  lips.  We  were  deceived  by  our 
good  opinion  of  the  bad.^^  ad  Lucif.  19.  The  same 
excuse  avails  for  Liberius- 


SON  OP  GOD. 


287 


SON  OF  GOD. 

I  UNDERSTAND  Athauasius  (always,  of  course,  after 
accepting  and  assuming  tlie  doctrine  as  true  and  indis- 
putable on  the  ground  of  its  being  revealed,)  to  go  on 
to  argue  about  it  thus  : — 

The  Son  of  God  must  be  God,  granting  that  the 
human  word  Son  is  to  guide  us  to  the  knowledge 
of  what  is  heavenly ;  for  on  earth  we  understand  by  a 
son  one  who  is  the  successor  and  heir  to  a  given 
nature.  A  continuation  or  communication  of  nature 
enters  into  the  very  idea  of  jevvr]crL<; ;  if  there  is  no 
participation  of  nature  there  is  no  sonship,  Mia  rj 
<f)V(TC(;,  ov  yap  avofioiov  to  yivvrj/jia  rod  yevv^o-avro^, 
eUcov  yap  ecTiv  avrov,''  Orat.  iii.  §  4.  Hence  he 
speaks  of  OLKeLorrj^;  Trj<;  cpvo-eco^/^  ibid.  §  4,  16, 
&c. 

This  is  the  teaching  also  of  the  great  theologians 
who  followed  Athanasius.    Basil  says  that  Father  is 

a  term  of  relationship,^^  oIk€L(0(T€co^,  in  Eunom.  ii.  24, 
init.  and  that  a  father  may  be  defined,  one  who  gives 
to  another  the  origin  of  being,  according  to  a  nature 
like  his  own,"  ibid.  22.  And  Gregory  Nyssen,  that  the 
title  ^  Son  *  does  not  simply  express  the  being  from 
another,  but  relationship  according  to  nature/*  c. 
Eunom.  ii.  p.  91.  And  Cyril  says  that  the  term  Son  " 
denotes  the      substantial  origin  from  the  Father.^^ 


288 


SON  OF  GOD. 


Dial.  V.  p.  573.  This  was  wliy  the  Fathers  at  Nicaea 
were  not  content  with     from  the  Father/^  but  wrote 

from  the  substance  of  the  Father.^^ 

The  Son  then  participates  in  the  Divine  Nature^  and 
since  the  Divine  Nature  is  none  other  than  the  One 
individual  Living  Personal  True  God,  He  too  is  that 
God,  and  since  He  is  thus  identical  with  that  One 
True  God,  and  since  that  One  True  God  is  eternal  and 
never  had  a  beginning  of  existence,  therefore  the  Son 
is  eternal  and  without  beginning. 

^  Again,  such  a  real  Son  is  made  necessary  by  con- 
sidering what  the  very  Nature  of  God,  the  existence 
of  an  Infinite,  all-abounding,  all-perfect  Being,  implies. 
We  cannot  be  surprised  to  be  told  that  the  infinite 
Essence  of  God  necessarily  flows  out,  in  consequence  of 
His  very  immensity,  into  a  reflection  or  perfect  image  or 
likeness  of  Himself,  which  in  all  respects  is  His  reitera- 
tion, except  in  not  being  He.  There  are  then  at  least 
two  Selves  (so  to  speak)  in  God,  that  is,  a  First  and 
Second  Person. 

Now  this  infinite  Image  of  God  is  not  external  to 
the  First  Person,  because  the  First  is  infinite.  The 
image  is  commensurate,  but  no  more  than  com- 
mensurate, with  the  Original.  The  Second  cannot 
extend  beyond  the  First  or  be  external  to  Him.  The 
First  and  Second  cannot  become  Two  except  as  viewed 
in  their  relation  of  Father  and  Son.  As  eternity  a 
parte  ante  is  not  doubled  by  being  added  to  eternity 
a  parte  post;  but  before  and  after  are  two  only  when 
contrasted  with  each  other,  so,  though  God  and  His 
Image  are  relatively  two,  an  Image  of  God  does  not 


SON  OF  GOD. 


289 


make  two  Gods.  Indeed  we  cannot  apply  ideas  arising 
out  of  number  to  the  Illimitable. 

^  This  Image,  as  being  the  Effluence  and  Expression 
and  Likeness  of  the  Almighty, .  may  equally  well  be 
called  Word  or  Son,  and,  whether  we  use  one  of  these 
names  or  the  other,  we  mean  to  express,  though  under 
a  distinct  aspect  in  each  of  them,  a  Second  Person 
in  the  Godhead.  The  name  of  Image  teaches  us  that 
the  Second  is  commensurate  and  co-equal  with  the 
First ;  that  of  Son,  that  He  is  co-eternal,  for  the  nature 
of  God  cannot  alter  or  vary  ;  and  the  name  of  Word 
teaches  us  that  in  Him  is  represented  and  manifested 
the  intelligence,  living  force,  and  operative  energy  of 
the  Supreme  Being.  Hence  it  is  that  in  the  history 
(if  I  may  use  the  word)  of  the  Creator  and  His 
creatures^  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  is 
the  chief  Agent  brought  before  us,  and  that  the  offices 
which  are  assigned  to  Him  occupy  a  far  larger  portion 
of  revealed  teaching  than  even  what  belongs  to  His 
original  Divine  Nature. 

^  The  Arians  joined  issue  with  Catholics  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  what  was  involved  in  the  title  Son.^^  They 
put  aside  Word,  Image,  &c.,  as  figures  of  speech ;  said 
that  Son  was  His  real  name,  and  then  explained  Son 
away,  maintaining  that,  whatever  else  Sonship  might 
teach  us,  even  at  first  sight  it  was  plain  that  a  Son 
could  not  but  be  posterior  in  time  to  his  Father ;  but 
if  so,  if  our  Lord  was  not  eternal  a  parte  ante,  He  was 
only  a  creature.  The  Catholics  replied  that  that  could 
not  be  the  essential  true  meaning  of  a  word  which  it  did 
not  always  hold ;    now  the  Arian  argument  from  the 

VOL.  II.  V 


290  SON  OF  GOD. 

word  Son^^  involved  the  existence  of  time,  tliat  is^  of 
a  condition  which  did  not  always  exist  in  the  instance 
of  the  Almighty,  of  whom  we  are  speaking ;  either  then 
God  had  no  Son,  or  else  that  Son  was  co-eval,  co-eternal 
with  Him.  Moreover^  there  could  be  no  change  in  the 
Divine  Essence ;  what  He  was  once,  that  He  ever  was. 
Once  a  Father,  always  a  Father.  The  Arians  replied 
that  the  Almighty  was  not  always  Creator,  He  became 
a  Creator  in  time ;  and  so  as  regards  the  gennesis 
of  the  Son,  though  in  its  very  beginning  it  was 
not  from  eternity  but  in  time,  that  gennesis  was 
some  unknown  kind  of  creation,  and  that  to  connect  it 
with  the  Divine  ovata  was  to  introduce  material  notions 
into  the  idea  of  God.  The  Catholics  of  course  answered 
that  the  notion  of  materiality  was  quite  as  foreign  to 
any  right  conception  of  God,  as  that  of  time  was,  and 
that  as  the  Divine  Sonship  was  eternal,  so  was  it  simply 
spiritual,  being  taught  under  material  images,  only 
because  from  the  conditions  of  our  knowledge  we  could 
not  speak  of  it  in  any  other  way.  vid.  art.  Avian  tenets. 
Here  Eusebius  makes  an  apposite  remark,  which 
ought  to  have  led  him  farther : — As  we  do  not  know 
how  God  can  create  out  of  nothing,  so,  he  says,  we  are 
utterly  ignorant  of  the  Divine  Generation.  We  do 
not  understand  innumerable  things  which  lie  close  to 
us ;  how  the  soul  is  joined  to  the  body,  how  it  enters 
and  leaves  it,  what  its  nature,  what  the  nature  of 
Angels.  It  is  written,  He  who  believes,^^  not  he  who 
knows,  ^^has  eternal  life.^^  Divine  Generation  is  as 
distinct  from  human  as  God  from  man.  The  sun^s 
radiance  itself  is  but  an  earthly  image,  and  gives  us  no 


SON  OF  GOD. 


291 


true  idea  of  that  which,  is  above  all  images.  Eccl. 
Theol.  i.  12.  So  too  S.  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  29.  8.  vid. 
also  Hippol.  in  Noet.  16.  Cyril^  Cat.  xi.  11  and  19, 
and  Origen,  according  to  Mosheim,  Ante- Const,  p.  619. 
And  instances  in  Petav.  de  Trin.  v.  6,  §  2  and  3.  vid. 
arts.  Illustrations,  Image,  &c. 

^  There  are  not  many  Words,  but  one  only  Word 
of  the  one  Father,  and  one  Image  of  the  one  God.^^ 
Orat.  ii.  §  27. 

^  The  Son  does  not  live  by  the  gift  of  life,  for  He 
is  life,  and  does  but  give  it,  not  receive.^^  Orat.  iii.  §  1. 
S.  Hilary  uses  different  language  with  the  same  mean- 
ing, Vita  viventis  [Filii]  in  vivo  [Patre]  est/^  de 
Trin.  ii.  11.  Other  modes  of  expression  for  the 
same  mystery  are  found  in  art.  Goinlierence,  the 
whole  being  of  the  Son  is  proper  to  the  Father^s  sub- 
stance;^^ Orat.  iii.  3.  the  Son^s  being,  because 
from  the  Father,  is  therefore  in  the  Father ;  ibid, 
also  6  init.  the  fulness  of  the  Father^s  Godhead  is 
the  being  of  the  Son.^^  5.  and  Didymus,  q  Trarpc/irj 
deoTT]^.  Trin.  i.  27,  p.  82,  and  S.  Basil,  ov  e^eu 
TO  elva,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  12,  fin.  Thus  the  Father 
is  the  Son^s  life  because  the  Son  is  from  Him,  and 
the  Son  the  Father^s  because  the  Son  is  in  Him. 
All  these  are  but  different  ways  of  signifying  the 

^  The  Second  Person  in  the  Holy  Trinity  is  not  a 
quality,  or  attribute,  or  a  mere  relation,  but  the  One 
Eternal  Essence ;  not  a  part  of  the  First  Person,  but 
whole  or  entire  God,  all  that  God  is ;  nor  does  the 
gennesis  impair  the  Father^s  Essence,  which  is  already 

V  2 


292 


SON  OF  GOD. 


whole  and  entire  God.  Thus  there  are  two  infinite 
Persons,  in  Each  Other  because  They  are  infinite.  Each 
of  Them  being  wholly  One  and  the  Same  Divine  Being, 
yet  not  being  merely  separate  aspects  of  the  Same. 
Each  is  God  as  absolutely  as  if  the  Other  were  not. 
Such  a  statement  indeed  is  not  so  much  a  contradiction 
in  the  terms  used,  as  in  our  conceptions,  from  the 
inability  of  our  minds  to  deal  with  infinities ;  yet  not 
therefore  a  contradiction  in  fact,  unless  we  would 
maintain  that  human  words  can  express  in  one  formula, 
or  human  thought  can  grasp  and  contemplate,  the 
Incomprehensible,  Self-existent  First-Cause. 

Man,^^  says  S.  Cyril,  "  inasmuch  as  he  had  a 
beginning  of  being,  also  has  of  necessity  a  beginning 
of  begetting,  as  w^hat  is  from  him  is  a  thing  generate, 
but  ...  if  God^s  substance  transcend  time,  or  origin, 
or  interval.  His  generation  too  will  transcend  these ; 
nor  does  it  deprive  the  Divine  Nature  of  the  power  of 
generating  that  He  doth  not  this  in  time.  For  other 
than  human  is  the  manner  of  divine  generation ;  and 
together  with  God^s  existing  is  implied  His  generating, 
and  the  Son  was  in  Him  by  generation;  nor  did  His 
generation  precede  His  existence,  but  He  was  always, 
and  that  by  generation  .^^    Thesaur.  v.  p.  35. 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD's  MANHOOD.  293 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS   OF  OUR 
LORD^S  MANHOOD. 

1.  His  manhood  had  no  personality,  but  was  taken 
up  into  His  divinity  as  Second  Person  of  the  Holy 
Trinity. 

That  is,  according  to  the  words  of  the  Symholum 
8,  At] tan.,  Unus,  non  conversione  divinitatis  in 
carnem,  sed  assumptione  humanitatis  in  Deum/^  That 
personality,  which  our  Lord  had  had  from  eternity  in  the 
Holy  Trinity,  He  had  still  after  His  incarnation.  His 
human  nature  subsisted  in  His  divine,  not  existing  as  we 
exist,  but,  so  to  say,  grafted  on  Him,  or  as  a  garment  in 
which  He  was  clad.  We  cannot  conceive  of  an  incarna- 
tion, except  in  this  way ;  for,  if  His  manhood  had  not 
been  thus  after  the  manner  of  an  attribute,  if  it  had 
been  a  person,  an  individual,  such  as  one  of  us,  if  it  had 
been  in  existence  before  He  united  it  to  Himself,  He 
would  have  been  simply  two  beings  under  one  name,  or 
else,  His  divinity  would  have  been  nothing  more  than 
a  special  grace  or  presence  or  participation  of  divine 
glory,  such  as  is  the  prerogative  of  saints. 

He  then  is  one,  as  He  was  from  eternity, — the  same 
He     to  whom  also  belong  body  and  soul,  and  all  their 
powers  and  affections,  as  well  as  the  possession  of 
divinity.    He  it  is,  God  the  Son,  who  was  born,  who  had 
a  mother,  who  shed  His  blood,  who  died  and  rose  again. 


294    SPECIAL  CHAEACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD^S  MANHOOD. 

His  manhood  loses  the  privilege  of  a  personalitj^  of  its 
own,  in  order  to  gain  the  special  prerogative  of  belong- 
ing to  the  Second  Person  of  the  Divine  Trinity,  and  all 
for  our  sake,  that  He  may  be  the  medium  of  a  spiritual 
union  between  us  and  His  Father. 

^  This  was  the  question  which  came  into  discussion  in 
the  Nestorian  controversy,  when  it  was  formally  deter- 
mined that  all  that  took  place  in  respect  to  the  Eternal 
Word  as  man,  belonged  to  His  Person,  and  therefore 
might  be  predicated  of  Him ;  so  that  it  was  heretical 
not  to  confess  the  Word^s  body,  (or  the  body  of  God 
in  the  Person  of  the  Word,)  the  Word^s  death,  the 
Word^s  blood,  the  Word^s  exaltation,  and  the  Word^s 
or  God^s  Mother,  who  was  in  consequence  called 
0€ot6ko^,  the  tessera  on  which  the  controversy  mainly 
turned.  The  Godhead,^^  says  Athanasius,  dwelt 
in  the  flesh  bodily ;  which  is  all  one  with  saying,  that, 
being  God,  He  had  a  body  proper  to  Him,  (oScov,)  and 
using  this  as  an  instrument,  opydvM,  He  became  man  for 
our  sakes ;  and  because  of  this,  things  proper  to  the 
flesh  are  said  to  be  His,  since  He  was  in  it,  as  hunger, 
thirst,  pain,  fatigue,  and  the  like,  of  which  the  flesh  is 
capable,  Sefcrtfcr) ;  while  the  works  proper  to  the  Word 
Himself,  as  raising  the  dead,  and  restoring  sight  to  the 
blind,  and  curing  the  issue  of  blood,  He  did  Himself 
through  His  body,^^  &c.  Orat.  iii.  31.  vid.  the  whole 
passage,  which  is  as  precise  as  if  it  had  been  written 
after  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  controversies,  though 
without  the  technical  words  then  adopted. 

2.  He  took  on  Him  our  fallen  nature,  vid.  art.  Fleshy 
to  which  add  here  from  Petavius,     Verbum  corpus  et 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD^S  MANHOOD.  295 


naturam  hominis  ex  eadem,  quae  in  corruptelam  deflux- 
erat,  massa  sibi  formare  et  assumere  voluit ;  tametsi 
in  ea,  unde  genitus  est  Deus^  carne  Virginis  repurga- 
tum  illud  fuerit/^  Incarn.  v.  14,  6.  He  says  this, 
quoting  Irenasus;  and  elsewhere  quoting  Leontius, 
"  Eecte  Leontius  ejusmodi  assumpsisse  carnem  asserit 
Verbum,  qualein  habuit  Adam  post  peccatum  dam- 
natus,  et  qualem  nos  habemus  ex  eadem  massa  pro- 
creati/^  Incarn.  x.  3,  8.  Vid.  on  this  subject  Perrone 
de  Incarn.  part.  ii.  c.  2.  Corrol.  iv. 

3.  His  manhood  was  subject  to  death,  and  to  the 
other  laws  of  human  nature. 

%  Athanasius,  Orat.  ii.  66,  says  that  our  Lord^s  body 
was  subject  to  death ;  and  so  elsewhere,  His  body, 
as  having  a  common  substance  with  all  men,  for  it  was 
a  human  body  (though,  by  a  new  marvel,  it  subsisted 
of  the  Virgin  alone),  yet  being  mortal,  died  after  the 
common  course  of  the  like  natures. Incarn.  20, 
also  8,  18,  init.  Orat.  iii.  56.  And  so  rov  avOpcoiroi/ 
aa6pco6evTa.  Orat.  iv.  33.  And  so  S.  Leo.  in  his  Tome 
lays  down  that  in  the  Incarnation,  suscepta  est  ab 
aeternitate  mortalitas.''^    Bp.  xxviii.  3.    And  S.  Austin, 

Utique  vulnerabile  atque  mortale  corpus  habuit 
[Christus],  contr.  Faust,  xiv.  2.  A  Eutychian  sect 
denied  this  doctrine  (the  Aphthartodoceta)),  and  held 
that  our  Lord^s  manhood  was  naturally  indeed  corrupt, 
but  became  from  its  union  with  the  Word  incorrupt 
from  the  moment  of  conception;  and  in  consequence 
they  held  that  our  Lord  did  not  suffer  and  die,  except 
by  miracle,  vid.  Leont.  c.  Nest.  ii.  (Canis.  t.  i.  pp.  563, 
4,  8.)  vid.  supr.  art.  Adam. 


296    SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD^S  MANHOOD. 


%  It  was  a  point  in  controversy  with  tlie  extreme 
Monophysites,  that  is,  the  Eutychians,  whether  our 
Lord^s  body  was  naturally  subject  to  death,  the  Catho- 
lics maintaining  the  affirmative,  as  Athanasius,  Orat. 
i.  §  44.  Eutyches  asserted  that  our  Lord  had  not  a 
human  nature,  by  which  he  meant  among  other  things 
that  His  manhood  was  not  subject  to  the  laivs  of  a  body, 
but  so  far  as  He  submitted  to  them,  did  so  by  an  act 
of  will  in  each  particular  case ;  and  this,  lest  it  should 
seem  that  He  was  moved  by  the  irddr)  against  His  will 
aKovaiay^; ;  and  consequently  that  His  manhood  was  not 
subject  to  death.  But  the  Catholics  maintained  that 
He  had  voluntarily  placed  Himself  under  those  laws, 
and  died  naturally,  vid.  Athan.  contr.  ApolL  i.  17,  and 
that  after  the  resurrection  His  body  became  incor- 
ruptible, not  according  to  nature,  but  by  grace,  vid. 
Leont.  de  Sect.  x.  p.  530.  Anast.  Hodeg.  c.  23.  To 
express  their  doctrine  of  the  virep^vh  of  our  Lord^s 
manhood,  the  Eutychians  made  use  of  the  Catholic 
expression  ut  voluit,^^  vid.  Athan.  1.  c.  Eutyches  ap. 
Leon.  Ep.  21.  ^^quomodo  voluit  et  scit^^  twice;  vid. 
also  Theod.  Eranist.  i.  p.  10.  ii.  p.  105.  Leont.  contr. 
Nest.  i.  p.  544.  Pseudo-Athan.  Serm.  adv.  Div.  Haer. 
§  viii.  (t.  2,  p.  560.) 

4.  Yet  He  suspended  those  laws,  when  He  pleased. 

^  This,  our  Lord^s  either  suspense  or  permission,  at 
His  will,  of  the  operations  of  His  manhood,  is  a  great 
principle  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation.  ^'That 
He  might  give  proof  of  His  human  nature,^^  says 
Theophylact,  on  John  xi.  34,  He  allowed  It  to  do 
its  own  work,  and  chides  It  and  rebukes  It  by  the 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD's  MANHOOD.  297 


power  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  Flesh  then,  not  bearing 
the  rebuke,  is  troubled  and  trembles,  and  thus  gets  the 
better  of  Its  grief.^^  And  S.  Cyril:  ^^When  grief 
began  to  be  stirred  in  Him,  and  His  sacred  flesh  was 
on  the  verge  of  tears,  He  suffers  it  not  to  be  affected 
freely,  as  is  our  custom,  but  ^  He  was  vehement 
{iv€^pLfji7](TaTo)  in  the  Spirit,^  that  is,  He  in  some  way 
chides  His  own  Flesh  in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
and  It,  not  bearing  the  movement  of  the  Godhead 
united  to  It,  trembles,  &c.  .  .  .  For  this  I  think  is 
the  meaning  of  ^  troubled  Himself.'' fragm.  in  Joan, 
p.  685.  Sensus  corporei  vigebant  sine  lege  peccati,  et 
Veritas  affectionum  sub  moderamine  Deitatis  et  mentis. 
Leon.  Ep.  35,  3.  Thou  art  troubled  against  thy 
will ;  Christ  is  troubled,  because  He  willed  it.  Jesus 
hungered,  yes,  but  because  He  willed  it ;  Jesus  slept, 
yes,  but  because  He  willed  it ;  Jesus  sorrowed,  yes, 
but  because  He  willed  it ;  Jesus  died,  yes,  but  because 
He  willed  it.  It  was  in  His  power  to  be  affected  so  or 
so,  or  not  to  be  affected. ''^  ^^g-  Joan.  xlix.  18.  The 
Eutychians  perverted  this  doctrine,  as  if  it  implied  that 
our  Lord  was  not  subject  to  the  laws  of  human  nature; 
and  that  He  suffered  merely  by  permission  of  the 
Word.'^  Leont.  ap.  Canis.  t.  1,  p.  563.  In  like 
manner,  Marcion  or  Manes  said  that  His  flesh  ap- 
peared from  heaven  in  resemblance,  o)?  rjdiXi^aeP.^' 
Athan.  contr.  Apoll.  ii.  3. 

T[  To  be  troubled  was  proper  to  the  flesh,^^  says 
Athan.,  but  to  have  power  to  lay  down  His  life,  and 
to  take  it  again,  when  He  will,  was  no  property  of 
men,  but  of  the  Word^s  power.    For  man  dies,  not  by 


298   SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD^S  MANHOOD. 


his  own  power^  but  by  necessity  of  nature  and  against 
his  will ;  but  the  Lord  being  Himself  immortal,  but 
having  a  mortal  flesh,  had  power,  as  God,  to  become 
separate  from  the  body  and  to  take  it  again,  when  He 
would.  Concerning  this  too  speaks  David  in  the 
Psalm,  Thou  shalt  not  leave  My  soul  in  hell,  neither 
shalt  Thou  suffer  Thy  Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  For 
it  beseemed,  that  the  flesh,  corruptible  as  it  was, 
should  no  longer  after  its  own  nature  remain  mortal, 
but,  because  of  the  Word  who  had  put  it  on,  should 
abide  incorruptible.^^    Orat.  iii.  §  57. 

%  This  might  be  taken  as  an  illustration  of  the 
'^ut  voluit,^^  vid.  supr.  p.  296.  And  so  the  expressions 
in  the  Evangelists,  Into  Thy  hands  I  commend  My 
Spirit,^^  He  bowed  the  head/'  He  gave  up  the 
ghost,^^  are  taken  to  imply  that  His  death  was  His  free 
act.  vid.  Ambros.  in  loc.  Luc.  Hieron.  in  loc.  Matt, 
also  Athan.  Serm.  Maj.  de  Fid.  4.  It  is  Catholic 
doctrine  that  our  Lord,  as  man,  submitted  to  death  of 
His  free  will,  and  not  as  obeying  an  express  command 
of  the  Father.  Who,^^  says  S.  Chrysostom  on  John 
X.  18,  Hom.  60,  2,  ^^has  not  power  to  lay  down  his  own 
life  ?  for  any  one  who  will  may  kill  himself.  But  He 
says  not  this,  but  how  ?  ^  I  have  power  to  lay  it  down 
in  such  sense  that  no  one  can  do  it  against  My  will  .  .  I 
alone  have  the  disposal  of  My  life/  which  is  not  true  of 
us.^^  And  still  more  appositely  Theophylact,  It  was 
open  to  Him  not  to  sufier,  not  to  die ;  for  being  with- 
out sin.  He  was  not  subject  to  death.  ...  If  then  He 
had  not  been  willing,  He  had  not  been  crucified/^  in 
Hebr.  xii.  2.        Since  this  punishment  is  contained  in 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD^S  MANHOOD.  299 

the  death  of  the  body^  that  the  soul^  because  it  has 
deserted  God  with  its  will,  deserts  the  body  against  its 
will  .  .  .  the  soul  of  the  Mediator  proved  how  utterly 
clear  of  the  punishment  of  sin  was  its  coming  to  the 
death  of  the  flesh,  in  that  it  did  not  desert  the  flesh  un- 
willingly, but  because  it  willed,  and  when  it  willed,  and 
as  it  willed.  .  .  And  this  did  they  specially  admire, 
who  were  present,  says  the  Gospel,  that  after  that 
work,  in  which  He  set  forth  a  figure  of  our  sin.  He 
forthwith  gave  up  the  ghost.  For  crucified  men  were 
commonly  tortured  by  a  lingering  death.  ,  .  .  But  He 
was  a  wonder,  (miraculo  fuit,)  because  He  was  found 
dead.^^  August,  de  Trin.  iv.  n.  16. 

5.  Though  His  manhood  was  of  created  substance, 
He  cannot  be  called  a  creature. 

%  Athan.  seems  to  say,  Orat.  ii.  §  45,  that  it  is  both 
true  that  The  Lord  created  Me,'^  and  yet  that  the  Son 
was  not  created.  Creatures  alone  are  created,  and  He 
was  not  a  creature.  Rather  something  belonging  or 
relating  to  Him,  something  short  of  His  substance  or 
nature,  was  created.  However,  it  is  a  question  in 
controversy  whether  even  His  manhood  can  be  called 
a  creature,  though  many  of  the  Fathers,  (including 
Athan.  in  several  places,)  seems  so  to  call  it.  The 
difficulty  may  be  viewed  thus  :  that  our  Lord,  even  as 
to  His  human  nature,  is  the  natural,  not  the  adopted. 
Son  of  God,  (to  deny  which  is  the  error  of  the  Adop- 
tionists,)  whereas  no  creature  can  be  His  natural  and 
true  Son ;  and  again,  that  His  human  nature  is 
worshipped,  which  would  be  idolatry,  if  it  were  a 
creature.     Tlie  question  is  discussed   in  Petav.  de 


300   SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD'S  MANHOOD. 

Incarn.  vii.  6,  who  determines  that  the  human  nature^ 
though  in  itself  a  created  substance^  yet  viewed  as 
deified  in  the  Word^  does  not  in  fact  exist  as  a  creature. 
Vasquez^  however^  considers  that  our  Lord  may  be 
called  creature^  viewed  as  man^  in  3  Thom.  Disp.  66^  and 
also  Raynaud  0pp.  t.  2,  p.  84^  expressing  his  opinion 
strongly.  And  Berti  de  Theol.  Disc,  xxvii.  5,  who 
adds^  however,  with  Suarez  after  S.  Thomas  (in  3  Thom. 
Disput.  35.  0pp.  t.  16,  p.  489,)  that  it  is  better  to 
abstain  from  the  use  of  the  term.  Of  the  Fathers,  S. 
Jerome  notices  the  doubt,  and  decides  it  in  favour  of 
the  term  :  Since,^^  he  says,  Wisdom  in  the  Pro- 
verbs of  Solomon  speaks  of  Herself  as  created  a 
beginning  of  the  ways  of  God,  and  many  through  fear 
lest  they  should  be  obliged  to  call  Christ  a  creature^ 
deny  the  whole  mystery  of  Christ,  and  say  that  not 
Christ,  but  the  world^s  wisdom  is  meant  by  this 
Wisdom,  we  freely  declare,  that  there  is  no  hazard  in 
calling  Him  creature,  whom  we  confess  with  all  the 
confidence  of  our  hope  to  be  ^  worm,^  and  ^  man,^ 
and  ^  crucified,^  and  ^  curse. ^  ^'  In  Eph.  ii.  10.  He  is 
supported  by  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  §  46.  Ep.  JEg.  17.  Expos. 
F.  4  (perhaps),  Scrap,  ii.  8,  fin.  Naz.  Orat.  30.  2  fin.  38. 
13.  Nyss.  in  Cant.  Hom.  13,  t.  i.  p.  663,  init.  Cyr.  Hom. 
Pasch.  17,  p.  233.  Max.  Mart.  t.  2,  p.  265.  Damasc. 
F.  O.  iii.  3.  Hil.  de  Trin.  xii.  48.  Ambros.  Psalm. 
118.  Serm.  5,  25.  August.  Ep.  187,  n.  8.  Leon. 
Serm.  77,  2.  Greg.  Mor.  v.  63.  The  principal 
authority  on  the  other  side  is  S.  Epiphanius,  who  ends 
his  argument  with  the  words,  The  Holy  Church  of 
God  worships  not  a  creature,  but  the  Son,  who  is 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD^S  MANHOOD.  301 


begotten,  Father  in  Son/'  &c.    Hser.  69,  36.    And  S. 
Proclus  too  speaks  of  the  child  of  the  Virgin  as  being 
Him  who  is  worshipped,  not  the  creature/'  Orat.  v. 
fin. 

^  On  the  whole  it  would  appear,  (1.)  that  if  crea- 
ture/' like  Son/'  be  a  ^personal  term,  then  He  is  not 
a  creature ;  but  if  it  be  a  word  of  (human)  nature,  He  is 
a  creature ;  (2.)  that  our  Lord  is  a  creature  in  respect  to 
the  flesh  (vid.  Orat.  ii.  §  47) ;  (3.)  that  since  the  flesh 
is  infinitely  beneath  His  divinity,  it  is  neither  natural 
nor  safe  to  call  Him  a  creature,  (according  to  St, 
Thomas's  example,  non  dicimus,  quod  ^thiops  est 
albus,  sed  quod  est  albus  secundum  dentes ") ;  and 
(4.)  that  if  the  flesh  is  worshipped,  still  it  is  wor- 
shipped as  in  the  Person  of  the  Son,  not  by  a  separate 
act  of  worship.  A  creature  worship  not  we,"  says 
Athan.,  perish  the  thought  .  .  .  but  we  worship  the 
Lord  of  creation  made  flesh,  the  Word  of  God;  for  though 
the  flesh  in  itself  be  a  part  of  creation,  yet  it  has  become 
God's  body  .  .  .  who  so  senseless  as  to  say  to  the  Lord, 
Remove  Thyself  out  of  the  body,  that  I  may  worship 
Thee  ?  "  ad  Adelph.  3.  Epiphanius  has  imitated  this 
passage,  Ancor.  51,  introducing  the  illustration  of  a 
king  and  his  robe,  &c. 

^  And  hence  Athanasius  says,  Orat.  ii.  §  47,  that 
though  our  Lord's  flesh  is  created,  or  He  is  created  as 
to  the  flesh,  it  is  not  right  to  call  Him  a  creature. 
This  is  very  much  what  S.  Thomas  says  above,  that 
^^-^thiops,  albus  secundum  dentes,"  not  ^^est  albus." 
But  why  may  not  our  Lord  be  so  called  upon  the 
principle  of  the  communicatio  Idiomatum,  (vid.  infr.  p. 


302    SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD's  MANHOOD. 

367)  as  He  is  said  to  be  born  of  a  Virgin,  to  have  suffered, 
&c.  ?  The  reason  is  this  : — birth,  passion,  &c.,  con- 
fessedly belong  to  His  human  nature,  without  adding 

according  to  the  flesh  but  creature/^  not  im- 
plying humanity,  might  appear  a  simple  attribute  of 
His  Person,  if  used  without  limitation.  Thus,  as  S. 
Thomas  adds,  though  we  may   not   absolutely  say 

-^thiops  iste  albus,^^  we  may  say  crispus  est,^^  or  in 
like  manner,  he  is  bald  '/^  since  crispus,^^  or  bald,^^ 
can  but  refer  to  the  hair.  Still  more  does  this  remark 
apply  in  the  case  of  Sonship,^^  which  is  a  personal 
attribute  altogether;  as  is  proved,  says  Petav.  de 
Incarn.  vii.  6,  fin.  by  the  instance  of  Adam,  who  was  in 
all  respects  a  man  like  Seth,  yet  not  a  son.  Accord- 
ingly, we  may  not  call  our  Lord,  even  according  to  the 
manhood,  an  adopted  Son. 

6.  In  like  manner  we  cannot  call  our  Lord  a  servant. 

^  ^^The  assumption  of  the  flesh  did  not  make  of 
the  Word  a  servant,^^  says  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  §  14. 
ovK  iSovXov  Tov  \6yov,  though,  as  he  said,  Orat.  ii.  §  11, 
the  Word  became  a  servant,  as  far  as  He  was  man.  He 
says  the  same  thing,  Ep.  -^g.  17.  So  say  Naz.  Orat. 
32.  18.  Nyssen.  ad  Simpl.  (t.  2,  p.  471).  Cyril.  Alex, 
adv.  Theodor.  p.  223.  Hilar,  de  Trin.  xi.  13,  14.  Am- 
bros.  1.  Epp.  46,  3.  Athan.  however  seems  to  modify 
the  statement  when  he  says,  Orat.  ii.  §  50,  Not  that 
He  was  servant,  but  because  He  took  a  servant's  form."^^ 
Theodoret  also  denies  it,  Eran.  ii.  fin.  And  Damasc. 
F.  0.  iii.  21,  who  says  that  our  Lord  ^^took  on  Him 
an  ignorant  and  servile  nature,^^  but  '^that  we  may 
not  call  Him  servant/^  though  "the  flesh  is  servile. 


SPECIAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  OUR  LORD's  MANHOOD.  303 


had  it  not  been  united  to  God  tlie  Word/^  The 
parallel  question  of  ignorance,  here  touched  upon^  has 
come  under  our  notice  already^  vid.  art.  Ignorance, 
The  latter  view  prevailed  after  the  heresy  of  the 
Adoptionists^  who  seem  to  have  made  *^  servant 
synonymous  with  adopted  son.^^  Petavius,  Incarn. 
vii.  9^  distinguishes  between  the  essence  or  (what 
is  called)  actus  primus  and  the  actus  secundus ;  thus 
water  may  be  considered  in  its  nature  cold^  though 
certain  springs  are  in  fact  always  warm. 


304 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 

Though  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
and  the  characteristics  of  the  Three  Persons  have  been 
taught  from  the  first,  there  have  been  in  the  Church 
certain  difficulties  in  determining  what  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture belong  to  Each^  what  are  the  limits  of  Their  respec- 
tive offices^  and  what  are  the  terms  under  which  those 
offices  and  the  acts  of  those  offices  are  to  be  expressed. 
Thus  the  word  Spirit/'  if  the  Fathers  are  to  be  our 
expositors^  sometimes  means  Almighty  God,  without 
distinction  of  Persons,  sometimes  the  Son,  and  some- 
times and  more  commonly  the  Holy  Ghost.  And,  while 
the  Son  and  Spirit  divide,  so  to  speak,  the  economy  and 
mission  of  mercy  between  Them,  it  is  not  always  clear 
how  the  line  of  division  runs,  and  in  what  cases  there  is 
no  assignable  line. 

It  is  with  a  view  to  remove  some  portion  of  this 
difficulty  that  Athan.  observes,  Serap.  i.  4 — 7,  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  never  in  Scripture  called  simply  Spirit 
without  the  addition     of  God,''  or     of  the  Father,'' 
or     from  Me,"  or  of  the  article,  or  of     Holy,"  or 

The  Paraclete,"  or  of  truth,"  or  unless  He  has  been 
spoken  of  just  before.  This  rule,  however,  goes  but  a 
little  way  to  remove  the  difficulty,  as  it  exists  in  fact. 
One  important  class  of  questions  is  suggested  at  once 
by  the  Holy  Ghost  being  another  Paraclete,  which 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 


305 


implies  that  that  office  is  common  to  Him  and  the  Son. 
It  is  hence^  I  suppose^  that  in  St.  PauPs  words, 
^'6  Kvpto^  TO  irvevfjid  icrrLVy^^  2  Cor.  iii.  17,  Spirit  is 
understood  of  the  Third  Divine  Person  by  Origen.  c. 
Cels.  vi.  70.  Basil,  de  Spir.  S.  n.  52.  Pseudo-Athan. 
Comm.  Ess.  6.  But  there  are  more  important  instances 
than  this.  Spirit  is  used  more  or  less  distinctly  of 
our  Lord^s  divine  nature,  whether  in  itself  or  as  incar- 
nate,  in  John  vi.  64,  Rom.  i.  4,  1  Cor.  xv.  45,  1  Tim.  iii. 
16,  Hebr.  ix.  14,  1  Pet.  iii.  18,  &c.  Indeed,  the  early 
Fathers  speak  as  if  the  Holy  Ghost  which  came 
down  on  Mary  might  be  considered  the  Word,  e.g. 
Tertullian  against  the  Valentinians,  If  the  Spirit  of 
God  did  not  descend  into  the  womb  to  partalce  in  flesh 
from  the  womb,  why  did  He  descend  at  all  ?  de  Carn. 
Chr.  19.  vid.  also  ibid.  5  and  14.  contr.  Prax.  26. 
Just.  Apol.  i.  33.  Iren.  Haer.  v.  1.  Cypr.  Idol.  Van.  6. 
(p.  19,  Oxf.  Tr.)  Lactant.  Instit.  iv.  12.  vid.  also  Hilar. 
Trin.  ii.  26.  Athan.  X6709  iv  to3  irvevixan  eifKaTre  to 
acofia.  Serap.  i.  31,  fin.  iv  tco  Xoyco  rjv  to  TTvevfjua*  ibid.  iii. 

6.  And  more  distinctly  even  as  late  as  S.  Maximus, 
avTov,  avTL  (nropa^  avWa/Sovaa  top  Xoyov,  K€Kvr]K€,  t.  2, 
p.  309.  The  earliest  ecclesiastical  authorities  are  S. 
Ignatius  ad  Smyrn.  init.  and  S.  Hermas  (even  though 
his  date  were  a.d.  150),  who  also  says  plainly, 
^^Filius  autem  Spiritus  Sanctus  est.''^  Past.  iii.  5,  n. 
5.  The  same  use  of  Spirit for  the  Word  or  God- 
head of  the  Word  is  also  found  in  Tatian.  adv.  Gra3C. 

7.  Athenag.  Leg.  10.  Theoph.  ad  Autol.  ii.  10. 
Tertull.  Apol.  23.  Lact.  Inst.  iv.  G,  8.  Hilar.  Trin.  ix. 
3  and  14.     Eustath.  apud  Theod.  Eran.  lii.  p.  235. 

VOL.  II.  W 


306 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 


Athaii.  de  Incarn.  22  (if  it  be  Athanasius^s),  contr. 
Apol.  i.  8.  Apollinar.  ap.  Theod.  Eran.  i.  p.  71,  and  tlie 
Apollinarists  passim.  Greg.  Naz.  Ep.  101.  ad  Oledon. 
p.  85.  Ambros.  Incarn.  63.  Severian.  ap.  Theod. 
Eran.  ii.  p.  167.  Vid.  Grot,  ad  Marc.  ii.  8.  Bull.  Def. 
F.  N.  i.  2,  §  5.  Constant.  Prgef.  in  Hilar.  57,  &c. 
Montfaucon  in  Athan.  Serap.  iv.  19. 

Phoebadius  too^  in  his  remarks  on  2nd  Confession  of 
Sirmium  (the  blasphemia^^),  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  116  note, 
in  condemning  the  clause,  '^Hominem  suscepisse  per 
quem  compassus  est/^  as  implying  that  our  Lord^s  higher 
nature  was  not  divine,  but  of  the  nature  of  a  soul,  uses 
the  word  spiritus in  the  sense  of  Hilary  and  the 
Ante-Nicene  Fathers.        Impassibilis  Deus,^^  he  says, 

quia  Deus  Spiritus  .  .  .  non  ergo  passibilis  Dei 
Spiritus,  licet  in  homine  suo  passus.^^ 

^  Again,  Athan.  says  that  our  Lord^s  Godhead  was 
the  immediate  anointing  or  chrism  of  the  manhood  He 
assumed.  God  needed  not  the  anointing,  nor  was 
the  anointing  made  without  God  ;  but  God  both  applied 
it,  and  also  received  it  in  that  body  which  was  capable 
of  it.^^  in  Apollin.  ii.  3.  and  to  'X^ptcr/jLa  iyco  6  X6709,  to 
Be  ')(^pLa6ev  vir  i/jbov  6  av9pco7ro<;»  Orat.  iv.  §  36.  vid. 
Origen.  Periarch.  ii.  6.  n.  4.  And  S.  Greg.  Naz.  still 
more  expressly,  and  from  the  same  text  as  Athan., 
The  Father  anointed  Him  ^  with  the  oil  of  gladness 
above  His  fellows,^  anointing  the  manhood  with  the 
Godhead.''  Orat.  10.  fin.  Again,  This  [the  Godhead] 
is  the  anointing  of  the  manhood,  not  sanctifying  by  an 
energy  as  the  other  Christs  [anointed  ones],  but  by  a 
presence  of  that  Whole  who  anointed^  6\ov  rov  xp^ovto*;  ; 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 


307 


whence  it  came  to  pass  that  what  anointed  was  called 
man,  and  what  was  anointed  was  made  God/^  Orat. 
30.  20.  He  Himself  anointed  Himself ;  anointing  as 
God  the  body  with  His  Godhead^  and  anointed  as  man.^^ 
Damasc.  F.  0.  iii.  3.  Dei  Filius,  sicut  pluvia  in  vellus, 
toto  divinitatis  unguento  nostram  se  fadit  in  carnem."'^ 
Chrysolog.  Serm.  60.  It  is  more  common,  however,  to 
consider  that  the  anointing  was  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit,  as  Athan.  says,  Orat.  i.  §  47,  according  to 
Luke  iv.  18.  Acts  x.  38. 

^  Again,  in  explaining  Matt.  xii.  32,  Quicunque 
dixerit  verbum  contra  Filium,''  &c.,  he  considers  our 
Lord  to  contrast  the  Holy  Ghost  with  His  own 
humanity,  vid.  Orat.  i.  §  50,  bat  he  gives  other  expo- 
sitions in  Scrap,  iv.  6,  vid.  supr.  art.  Scripture  Passages, 
No.  11. 

^  The  Spirit  is  God^s  gift,^^  says  Athan.,  deov  hoypov, 
Orat.  ii.  §  18.  And  so  S.  Basil,  Scopov  rov  Oeov  to 
TTvevfMa*  de  Sp.  S.  57,  and  more  frequently  the  later 
Latins,  as  in  the  Hymn,  Altissimi  Donum  Dei;  also 
the  earlier,  e.g.  Hil.  de  Trin.  ii.  29,  and  August.  Trin. 
XV.  n.  29,  who  makes  it  a  personal  characteristic  of 
the  Third  Person  in  the  Holy  Trinity  :  non  dicitur 
Verbum  Dei,  nisi  Filius,  nec  Donum  Dei,  nisi  Spiritus 
Sanctus.^^  And  elsewhere,  Exiit,  non  quomodo 
natus,  sed  quomodo  datus,  et  ideo  non  dicitur  Filius. 
ibid.  V.  15,  making  it,  as  Petavius  observes.  His 
eternal  property,  ut  sic  procedat,  tanquam  donabile/' 
as  being  Love.    Trin.  vii.  13,  §  20. 

%  It  was  an  expedient  of  the  Macedonians  to  deny 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  God  because  it  was  not  usual 

w  2 


308 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 


to  call  Him  Ingenerate ;  and  perhaps  to  their  form  of 
heresy,  which  was  always  implied  in  Arianism,  and 
which  began  to  show  itself  formally  among  the  Semi- 
Arians  ten  years  later,  the  Sirmian  anathematism  may 
be  traced  :  Whoso  speaking  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as 
Paraclete,  shall  speak  of  the  Ingenerate  God,^^  &c.,  snpr. 
vol.  i.  p.  113.  They  asked  the  Catholics  whether  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  Ingenerate,  generate,  or  created,  for  into 
these  three  they  divided  all  things,  vid.  Basil,  in  Sabell. 
et  Ar.  Hom.  xxiv.  6.  But,  as  the  Arians  had  first  made 
the  alternative  only  between  Ingenerate  and  created,  and 
Athan.  de  Deer.  §  28,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  50,  shows  that 
generate  is  a  third  idea  really  distinct  from  one  and  the 
other,  so  S.  Greg.  Naz,  adds  proceeding,  eKiropevrov,  as 
an  intermediate  idea,  contrasted  with  Ingenerate,  yet 
distinct  from  generate,  Orat.  xxxi.  8.  In  other  words, 
Ingenerate  means,  not  only  not  generate,  but  not  from 
any  origin,  vid.  August,  de  Trin.  xv.  n.  47,  8. 

f  ^^If  the  Word  be  not  from  God,^^  says  Athan., 
reasonably  might  they  deny  Him  to  be  Son ;  but  if 
He  is  from  God,  how  see  they  not  that  what  exists  from 
any,  is  the  son  of  that  from  whom  it  is  ?  Orat.  iv.  §  15. 
In  consequence  it  is  a  very  difficult  question  in  theology, 
why  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  called  a  Son,^^  and  His 
procession  generation.-'^  This  was  an  objection  of  the 
Arians,  vid.  ad  Scrap,  i.  15 — 17,  and  Athan.  only 
answers  it  by  denying  that  we  may  speculate.  Other 
writers  apply,  as  in  other  cases,  the  theological  language 
of  the  Church  to  a  solution  of  this  question.  It  is 
carefully  discussed  in  Petav.  Trin.  vii.  13,  14. 

^  As  the  Arians  objected,  Orat.  i.  §  14,  that  the 


SPIRIT  OF  GOD. 


309 


First  and  Second  Persons  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ought  to 
be  considered  brothers^  aSeXcpol,  so^  in  the  course  of 
the  controversy^  did  they  say  the  same  as  to  the  Second 
and  Third,  vid.  Scrap,  i.  §  15.  iv.  2. 

"Is  the  Holy  Spirit  one/'  says  Athan.,  "and  the 
Paraclete  another,  and  the  Paraclete  the  later,  as  not 
mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  Orat.  iv.  §  29.  A 
heresy  of  this  kind  is  actually  noticed  by  Origen,  viz. 
of  those  "  qui  Spiritum  Sanctum  alium  quidem  dicant 
esse  qui  fait  in  Prophetis,  alium  autem  qui  fuit  in 
Apostolis  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.''  In  Tit.  t.  4,  p. 
695.  Hence  in  the  Creed,  "who  spake  by  the  pro- 
phets ;  and  hence  the  frequent  epithet  given  by 
S.  Justin  to  the  Holy  Spirit  of  irpo(\>riTLK6v]  e.g.  when 
speaking  of  baptism,  Apol.  i.  61,  fin.  Also  Ap.  i.  6, 
13.  Tryph.  49.  On  the  other  hand,  he  calls  the  Spirit 
of  the  Prophets  "the  Holy  Spirit,^'  e.g.  Tryph.  54,  61. 
Vid.  supr.  art.  Ooiiiherence. 


310 


THEOGNOSTUS. 


THEOGNOSTUS. 

Theognostus  was  Master  of  the  Catechetical  school 
of  Alexandria  towards  the  end  of  the  3rd  century, 
being  a  scholar,  or  at  least  a  follower,  of  Origen.  He  is 
quoted  by  Athanasius,  as  being  one  of  those  theologians 
who,  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  taught  that  the  ovaia 
of  the  Son  was  not  created,  but  from  the  ova-ia  of 
the  Father.  Athan.  calls  him  a  learned  man,^^  Deer. 
§  25,  and  ^^the  admirable  and  excellent,^^  Scrap,  iv.  9. 
His  seven  books  of  Hypotyposes  treated  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  of  angels,  and  evil  spirits,  of  the  Incarnation, 
and  the  Creation.  Photius,  who  gives  this  account. 
Cod.  106,  accuses  him  of  heterodoxy  on  these  points; 
which  Athanasius  in  a  measure  admits,  as  far  as  the 
wording  of  his  treatise  went,  speaking  of  his  ^^in- 
vestigating by  way  of  exercise.^^  Eusebius  does  not 
mention  him  at  all. 


TRADITION. 


311 


TRADITION. 

See/^  says  Athanasius,  we  are  proving  that  this 
view  has  been  transmitted  from  Fathers  to  Fathers  ;  but 
ye,  O  modern  Jews  and  disciples  of  Caiaphas^  whom 
can  ye  assign  as  Fathers  to  your  phrases  ?  Not  one 
of  the  understanding  and  wise,  (for  all  abhor  youj  but 
the  devil  alone ;  none  but  he  is  your  father  in  this 
apostasy,  who  both  in  the  beginning  scattered  on  you 
the  seed  of  this  irreligion,  and  now  persuades  you  to 
slander  the  Ecumenical  Council  for  committing  to 
writing,  not  your  doctrines,  but  that  which  '  from  the 
beginning  those  who  were  eye-witnesses  and  ministers 
of  the  Word  ^  have  handed  down  to  us.  For  the  faith 
which  the  Council  has  confessed  in  writing,  that  is  the 
faith  of  the  Catholic  Church ;  to  assert  this,  the  blessed 
Fathers  so  expressed  themselves  while  condemning  the 
Arian  heresy ;  and  this  is  a  chief  reason  why  these  men 
apply  themselves  to  calumniate  the  Council.  For  it  is 
not  the  terms  which  trouble  them,  but  that  those  terms 
prove  them  to  be  heretics,  and  presumptuous  beyond 
other  heresies/^  Deer.  §  27. 

^  Elsewhere  he  speaks  of  the  Arians  forcing  on  the 
divine  oracles  a  misinterpretation  according  to  their 
own  private  sense,^^  Orat.  i,  §  37,  and  cries  out,  Who 
heard  in  his  first  catechisings  that  God  had  a  Son, 
without  understanding  it  in  our  sense  ?    who,  on  the 


312 


TRADITION. 


rise  of  this  odious  heresy,  was  not  at  once  startled  at 
what  he  heard  as  being  strange  to  him  ?  Orat.  ii.  §  34 
For  parallel  passages  from  Athan.  and  many  others, 
vid.  arts,  on  Definitions,  Heretics ,  Private  Judgment,  Rule 
of  Faith,  and  Scripture,  From  these  it  would  appear  that 
the  two  main  sources  of  Revelation  are  Scripture  and 
Tradition ;  that  these  constitute  one  Rule  of  Faith,  and 
that,  sometimes  as  a  composite  rule,  sometimes  as  a 
double  and  co-ordinate,  sometimes  as  an  alternative, 
under  the  magisterium,  of  course,  of  the  Church,  and 
without  an  appeal  to  the  private  judgment  of  indi- 
viduals. 

These  articles,  too,  effectually  refute  the  hypothesis 
of  some  Protestants,  who,  to  destroy  the  force  of  the  evi- 
dence in  favour  of  our  doctrine  of  Tradition,  wish  to 
maintain  that  by  Tradition  then  was  commonly  meant 
Scripture ;  and  that  when  the  Fathers  speak  of  *^  Evan- 
gelical Tradition  they  mean  the  Gospels,  and  when 
they  speak  of  Apostolical  they  mean  the  Epistles. 
This  will  not  hold,  and  it  may  be  right,  perhaps,  here 
to  refer  to  several  passages  in  illustration. 

For  instance,  Ireuseus  says,  ^'  Polycarp,  .  .  whom 
we  have  seen  in  our  first  youth,  .  .  was  taught  those 
lessons  which  he  learned  from  the  Apostles,  which  the 
Church  also  transmits,  which  alone  are  true.  All  the 
Churches  of  Asia  bear  ivitness  to  them:  and  the 
successors  of  Polycarp,  down  to  this  day,  who  is  a 
much  more  trustworthy  and  sure  witness  of  truth 
than  Valentinus,'*  &c.  Haer.  iii.  3,  §  4.  Here  is  not 
a  word  about  Scripture,  not  a  hint  that  by  ^'trans- 
mission   and    succession     Scripture  is  meant.  And 


TRADITION. 


313 


SO  Irenseus  continues^  contrasting  Traditio  quse  est 
ab  Apostolis  with  Scripture :  Neque  Scripturis 
neque  Traditioni  consentire ;  Apostolicam  Bcclesi^ 
Traditionem ;  ^Weterem  Apostolorum  Traditionem/^ 
Again,  Theodoret  says  that  the  word  OeoroKo^;  was  used^ 
Kara  rrjv  aTrocTToXLKrjv  TrapdSocrtv ;  and  no  one  would 
say  that  deoro/co^  was  in  Scripture.  Hasr.  iv.  12. 
And  S.  Basil  contrasts  ra  etc  rrj^^  iyypdcpov  8cSaa/caXLa<; 
with  ra  i/c  tt}^  tcov  diroaroXociV  TrapaBocreco^y  de  Sp.  S. 
n.  66.  Presently  he  speaks  of  ovre  Trj<;  Oeoirvevarov 
ypa(f>rj(;,  ovre  tcov  diroaToXifccov  irapaSocrecov.  n.  77. 
Ori gen  speaks  of  a  dogma,  ovre  irapahihofjbevov  vtto  tcov 
dirocTToXooVy  ovt€  i/jL(j)aLv6/jL6v6v  irov  tmv  ypacfycov,  Tom. 
in  Matth.  xiii.  1.  Vid  also  in  Tit.  t.  4,  p.  696^  and 
Periarchon.  praef.  2,  and  Euseb.  Hist.  v.  23.  So  in  S, 
Athanasius  (de  Synod.  21,  fin.)  we  read  of  the  Apos- 
tolical Tradition  and  teachiug  which  is  acknowledged 
by  all; and  soon  after,  of  a  believing  conformably  tt} 
eva/yyeXtKy  koX  airoGToXiKrj  irapahocrei*^'  §  23,  init.  where 
7rapd8oaL<;  means  doctrine,  not  books ,  for  the  Greek 
would  run  Tjj  evayy-  Kal  Tjj  diroGT*  were  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  intended.  (Thus  S.  Leo,  secundum  evan- 
gelicam  apostolicam  que  dodrinam/'  Ep.  124,  1.)  And 
he  makes  rj  evayyeXLKr]  Trapd8>oai^  and  r]  iKHXrjcrLacrTtKrj 
Trap,  synonymous.  Cf.  Athan.  contr.  Apoll.  i.  22,  with 
ad  Adelph.  2,  init.  In  like  manner,  Neander  speaks  of 
two  kinds  of  so-called  Apostolical  Traditions,  doctrinal 
and  ecclesiastical,  Eccl.  Hist.  vol.  ii.  p.  333,  transl. 
And  Le  Moyne  considers  the  Apostolical  Tradition  of  S. 
Hippolytus  to  be  what  S.  Irenoeus  means  by  it,  doctrine, 
as  distinct  from  Scripture.  Var.  Sacr.  t.  2,  p.  1062.  Vid. 


314 


TRADITION. 


also  Pearson^  Vindic.  Ignat.  i.  4,  circ.  fin.  In  like 
manner^  S.  Augustine  contrasts  Apostolical  Tradition 
with,  writings,  de  Bapt.  contr.  Don.  ii.  7,  v.  23,  and 
lie  calls  Infant  Baptism  an  Apostolical  Tradition.  De 
Peccat.  Mer.  i.  26.  And  S.  Cyprian  speaks  of,  not 
only  wine,  but  the  mixed  Cup  in  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
as  an  Evangelical  truth  and  tradition  of  the 
Lord/^    Epist.  63.  14,  15. 

Some  instances  indeed  may  be  found  in  the  Fathers  of 
Scripture  considered  as  a  kind  of  Tradition,  which  it  is  ; 
but  these  do  not  serve  to  make  an  unnatural  (or  rather 
an  impossible)  interpretation  imperative  in  the  case  of 
such  passages  as  the  above.  jE7.gr.  Athan.  says,  The 
Apostolical  Tradition  teaches,  blessed  Peter  saying, 
&c.,  and  Paul  writing,^^  &c.  Adelph.  6*  Suicer  refers 
to  Greg.  Nys.  de  Virg.  xi.  fin.  Cyril  in  Is.  Ixvi.  5,  p.  909. 
Balsamon,  ad  Can.  vi.  Nic.  2,  Cyprian,  Ep.  74,  &c. 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


315 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 

When  the  Church  speaks  of  Three  Persons  in  One 
Divine  Essence,  it  seems  at  first  sight  that  she  must 
imply  and  mean,  if  she  would  avoid  contradiction  of 
ideas,  either  that  the     Three or  that  the  One 
expresses  an  abstraction  of  our  minds. 

If  God  is  numerically  one,  if  the  Divine  Essence  is 
undivided  and  simple  in  that  strict  sense  in  which  we 
speak  of  each  man  as  an  individual,  then  the  term 
Person  must  surely  denote  nothing  more  than  some 
aspect,  character,  ofl&ce,  or  assemblage  of  attributes, 
which  belongs  to  the  Almighty,  as  when  our  Lord  is 
spoken  of  as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King,  which  are 
mere  titles  or  appellatives,  not  existing  re  but  ratione. 
But  this  is  Sabellianism. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  may  consider  the  Three  Per- 
sons actually  to  exist,  not  being  mere  ideas  or  modes 
of  our  viewing  God,  but  as  realities,  intrinsically  distinct 
from  each  other,  separate  and  complete  one  by  one,  re 
as  well  as  ratione,  Persons  as  we  men  are  persons,  or 
at  least  in  some  analogous  way.  In  that  case  we  should 
go  on  to  consider,  as  a  necessary  inference,  that 
One expressed  only  a  logical  unity.  Ens  iinitm  in 
muUiSy  a  nature  or  class,  as  when  we  say  Man  is 
mortal ;  but  this  conclusion  brings  us  either  to 
Arianism  or  to  Tritheism. 


316 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


There  is  no  incompatibility  of  ideas  involved  in  the 
doctrine  of  Sabellian,  Arian^  or  Tritheist^  that  is^  no 
mystery;  but  the  Catholic  believes  and  holds  as  an 
article  of  faith  that  the  Divine  Three,  and  again  the 
Divine  One,  both  as  One  and  as  Three,  exist  re  not 
roMone;  and  therefore  he  has  to  answer  the  objection, 

Either  the  word  ^  Trinity  ^  denotes  a  mere  abstraction, 
or  the  word  ^  Unity'  does ;  for  how  can  it  be  at  once  a  fact 
that  Each  of  Three,  who  are  eternally  distinct  one  from 
another,  is  really  God,  and  also  a  fact  that  there  really 
is  but  one  God  ?  This  however  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
creed  of  S.  Athanasius,  and  certainly  is  to  be  received 
and  held  by  every  faithful  member  of  the  Church,  viz., 
that  the  Father  is  God  and  all  that  God  is,  and  so  too 
is  the  Son,  and  so  too  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  yet  there  is 
but  one  God;  that  the  word  God  may  be  predicated  of 
an  objective  Triad,  yet  also  belong  to  only  One  Being, 
to  a  Being  individual  and  sole,  all-perfect,  self-exist- 
ent, and  everlasting. 

To  state  this  in  the  lanoruaofe  of  Petavius,  who  is 
the  most  learned  expositor  of  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers  as  distinct  from  the  medieval  Church,  ^*  Non 
omittendum  Personas  Tres,  etsi  invicem  reapse  distant, 
re  tamen  idem  esse  cum  essentia,  et  ab  ea  non  nisi 
ratione  discrepare.''^  de  Trin.  iii.  11,  7.  It  is  a  Three  or 
Triad,  Each  of  whom  is  intrinsically  and  everlastingly 
distinct  from  Each,  (as  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  are 
not,  but  as  Priest  and  his  people.  King  and  his  sub- 
jects. Teacher  and  taught  are,)  yet  Each  is  One  and 
the  Same  individual  Divine  Essence. 

Let  it  be  observed  the  mystery  lies,  not  in  any  one 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


317 


of  the  statements  which  constitute  the  doctrine,  but  in 
their  combination.  The  meaning  of  each  proposition 
is  on  a  level  with  our  understanding.  There  is  no 
intellectual  diflBculty  in  apprehending  any  one  of  them. 

God  is  a  Father ;  God  is  a  Son ;  God  is  a  Holy 
Spirit ;  the  Father  is  not  the  Son ;  the  Son  is  not  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  the  Father :  God 
is  numerically  One  ;  there  are  not  Three  Gods.''^  In 
which  of  these  propositions  do  we  not  sufficiently  under- 
stand what  is  meant  to  be  told  us  ?  For  devotion,  then 
(and  for  devotion  we  may  conceive  these  high  truths  to 
be  revealed  to  us),  the  mystery  is  no  difficulty;  such 
understanding  of  its  separate  constituent  propositions 
as  we  have  is  sufficient  for  devotion,  which  lives  and 
thrives  upon  single  objects  rather  than  on  a  collection. 

The  difficulty  then  is  not  in  understanding  each 
sentence  of  which  the  doctrine  consists,  but  in  its  in- 
compatibility (taken  as  a  whole,  and  in  the  only  words 
possible  for  conveying  it  to  our  minds)  with  certain  of 
our  axioms  of  thought  indisputable  in  themselves,  but 
foreign  and  inapplicable  to  a  sphere  of  existences  of 
which  we  have  no  experience  whatever. 

What  in  fact  do  we  know  of  pure  spirit  ?  What  do 
we  know  of  the  infinite  ?  Of  the  latter  just  a  little,  by 
means  of  mathematical  science,  that  is,  under  the  con- 
ditions of  number,  quantity,  space,  distance,  direction, 
and  shape ;  just  enough  to  tell  us  how  little  we  know, 
and  how  little  wo  are  able  to  draw  arguments  and 
inferences  when  infinites  are  in  question.  Mathematical 
science  tells  us  that  one  and  one  infinite  do  not,  put 
together,  make  two  ;  that  there  may  be  innumerable 


318 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


infinites^  and  that  all  put  together  are  not  greater  than 
one  of  them;  that  there  are  orders  of  injSnites.  It  is 
plain  we  are  utterly  unable  to  determine  what  is 
possible  and  what  is  impossible  in  this  high  region  of 
realities.  And  then  again,  in  the  case  of  infinitesi- 
mals, do  not  three  lines  become  one  line  when  one  is 
placed  upon  another  ?  yet  how  can  we  say,  supposing 
them  respectively  coloured  white,  red,  and  blue,  that 
they  wonld  not  remain  three,  after  they  had  coalesced 
into  one,  as  entirely  as  they  were  really  three  before  ? 

Nor  in  its  doctrine  of  infinites  only,  does  mathe- 
matical science  illustrate  the  mysteries  of  Theology. 
Geometry,  for  instance,  may  be  used  to  a  certain  point 
as  an  exponent  of  algebraical  truth ;  but  it  would  be 
irrational  to  deny  the  wider  revelations  of  algebra, 
because  they  do  not  admit  of  a  geometrical  expression. 
The  fourth  power  of  a  quantity  may  be  received  as  a  fact, 
though  a  fourth  dimension  in  space  is  inconceivable. 
Again,  a  polygon  or  an  ellipse  is  a  figure  different  in 
kind  from  a  circle  j  yet  we  may  tend  towards  a  concep- 
tion of  the  latter  by  using  what  we  know  of  either  of 
the  former.  Thus  it  is  by  economical  expedients  that 
we  teach  and  transmit  the  mysteries  of  religion, 
separating  them  into  parts,  viewing  them  in  aspects, 
adumbrating  them  by  analogies,  and  so  approximating 
to  them  by  means  of  words  which  say  too  much  or  too 
little.  And  if  we  consent  to  such  ways  of  thought 
in  our  scientific  treatment  of  earthly  things,^^  is  it 
wonderful  that  we  should  be  forced  to  them  in  our 
investigation  of    heavenly  ? 

^    You  have  the  Son,  you  have  the  Father ;  fear  not 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


319 


duality  There  is  One  God,  because  Father  is 

One,  and  Son  is  God,  having  identity  as  Son  towards 
Father  The  Father  is  the  whole  fulness  of  God- 
head as  Father,  and  the  Son  is  the  whole  fulness  of 

Godhead  as  Son  The  Father  has  Being  perfect 

and  without  defect^  being  root  and  fount  of  the  Son 
and  the  Spirit;  and  the  Son  is  in  the  fulness  of  God- 
head_,  a  Living  Word  and  Offspring  of  the  Father 
without  defect.  And  the  Spirit  is  full  of  the  Son^  not 
being  part  of  another,  but  whole  in  Himself.  .  .  Let  us 
understand  that  the  Face  (nature  elSo^;)  is  One  of 
Three  truly  subsisting,  beginning  in  Father,  beaming 
in  Son,  and  manifested  through  Spirit."  Pseudo-Ath. 
c.  Sab.  Greg.  5 — 12.  I  hardly  arrive  at  contempla- 
ting the  One^  when  I  am  encircled  with  the  radiance 
of  the  Three ;  I  hardly  arrive  at  distinguishing  the 
Three,  when  I  am  carried  back  to  the  One.  When  I 
have  imaged  to  myself  One  of  the  Three,  I  think  It  the 
whole,  and  my  sight  is  filled,  and  what  is  more  escapes 
me.  .  .  .  And  when  I  embrace  the  Three  in  my  contem- 
plation, I  see  but  One  Luminary,  being  unable  to  dis- 
tinguish or  to  measure  the  Light  which  becomes 
One.'^  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  40.  41.  The  fulness  of  God- 
head is  in  the  Father,  and  the  fulness  of  Godhead 
is  in  the  Son,  yet  not  differing,  but  one  Godhead. 
.  ...  If  of  all  believers  there  was  one  soul  and  one 
heart,  ....  if  every  one  who  cleaves  to  the  Lord 
is  one  spirit,  ....  if  man  and  wife  are  one  flesh,  if 
all  of  us  men  in  respect  of  nature  are  of  one  substance, 
if  Scripture  thus  speaks  of  human  things,  that  many 
are  one,  of  which  there  can  be  no  comparison  with 


320 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


things  divine^  how  much  more  are  Father  and  Son 
one  in  Godhead^  where  there  is  no  difference  of  sub- 
stance or  of  will/^  &c.     Ambros.  de  Fid.  i.  n.  18. 

This  Trinity  is  of  one  and  the  same  nature  and  sub- 
stance, not  less  in  Each  than  in  All^  nor  greater  in 
All  than  in  Each ;  but  so  great  in  Father  alone  or  in 
Son  alone,  as  in  Father  and  Son  together  ....  For 
the  Father  did  not  lessen  Himself  to  have  a  Son  for 
Himself,  but  so  begat  of  Himself  another  Self^  as  to 
remain  whole  in  Himself,  and  to  be  in  the  Son  as  great 
as  He  is  by  Himself.  And  so  the  Holy  Ghost,  whole 
from  whole,  doth  not  precede  That  whence  He  pro- 
ceeds, but  is  as  great  with  Him  as  He  is  from  Him, 
and  neither  lessens  Him  by  proceeding  nor  increases 

by  adhering  Moreover,  He  who  hath  given  to 

so  many  hearts  of  His  faithful  to  be  one  heart,  how 
much  more  doth  He  maintain  in  Himself  that  these 
Three  and  Each  of  Them  should  be  God,  and  yet  all 
together,  not  Three  Gods,  but  One  God  ?  August. 
Ep.  170,  5. 

^  It  is  no  inconsistency  to  say  that  the  Father  is  first, 
and  the  Son  first  also,  for  comparison  or  number  is  not 
equal  to  the  expression  of  this  mystery.  Since  Each  is 
oXo9  6eo<^,  Each,  as  contemplated  by  our  finite  reason, 
at  the  moment  of  contemplation  excludes  the  Other. 
Though  we  profess  Three  Persons,  Person  cannot  be 
made  one  abstract  idea,  certainly  not  as  containing 
under  it  three  individual  subjects,  but  it  is  a  term  applied 
to  the  One  God  in  three  ways.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the 
Fathers,  that,  though  we  use  words  expressive  of  a 
Trinity,  yet  that  God  is  beyond  our  numbering,  and  that 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


321 


Father^  Son^  and  Holy  Gliost^  though  eternally  distinct 
from  each  other^  can  scarcely  be  viewed  together  in  com- 
mon, except  as  One  substance,  as  if  they  could  not  be 
generalised  into  Three  Any-whatever ;  and  as  if  it  were, 
strictly  speaking,  incorrect  to  speak  of  a  Person,  or 
otherwise  than  of  the  Person,  whether  of  Father,  or  of 
Son,  or  of  Spirit.  The  question  has  almost  been  admit- 
ted by  S.  Austin,  whether  it  is  not  possible  to  say  that 
God  is  One  Person  (Trin.  vii.  8),  for  He  is  wholly  and 
entirely  Father,  and  at  the  same  time  wholly  and  entirely 
Son,  and  wholly  and  entirely  Holy  Ghost.  Vid.  also 
Orat.  iv.  §  1  and  2,  where  Athan.  argues  against  the 
Sabellian  hypothesis  as  making  the  Divine  Nature  com- 
pound (the  Word  being  a  something  in  It),  whereas  the 
Catholic  doctrine  preserves  unity  because  the  Father  is 
the  One  God  simply  and  entirely,  and  the  Son  the  One 
God  simply  and  entirely  (vid.  next  paragraph) ;  the  Word 
not  a  sound,  he  says,  which  is  nothing,  nor  a  quality  which 
is  unworthy  of  God,  but  a  substantial  Word  and  a  sub- 
stantial Wisdom.  ^'^As,^^he  continues,  the  Origin  is  One 
substance,  so  Its  Word  and  Wisdom  is  One,  substantial 
and  subsistent ;  for  as  from  God  is  God,  and  from  Wise 
Wisdom,  and  from  Kational  (koytKov)  a  Word,  and  from 
Father  a  Son,  so  from  a  subsistence  is  He  subsistent, 
and  from  substance  substantial  and  substantive,  and 
from  existing  existent,^^  &c.  Vid.  art.  Goinhcrcnce, 

^  Nothing  is  more  remarkable  than  the  confident 
tone  in  which  Athan.  accuses  Arians,  as  in  Orat.  ii. 
§  38,  and  Sabcllians,  Orat.  iv.  §  2,  of  considering  the 
Divine  Nature  as  compound,  as  if  the  Catholics  were 
in  no  respect  open  to  such  a  charge.    Nor  are  they ; 

VOL.  II.  X 


322 


THE  HOLY  TEINITY  IN  UNITY. 


though  in  avoiding  it,  they  are  led  to  enunciate  the 
most  profound  and  ineffable  mystery,  vid.  supr. 
art.  Son  of  God,  The  Father  is  the  One  Simple 
Entire  Divine  Being,  and  so  is  the  Son.  They  do 
in  no  sense  share  divinity  between  Them;  Each  is 
o\o9  0609.  This  is  not  ditheism  or  tritheism,  for  They 
are  the  same  God ;  nor  is  it  Sabellianism,  for  They  are 
eternally  distinct  and  substantive  Persons ;  but  it  is  a 
depth  and  height  beyond  our  intellect,  how  what  is 
Two  in  so  full  a  sense  can  also  in  so  full  a  sense  be  One, 
or  how  the  Divine  Nature  does  not  come  under  num- 
ber in  the  sense  in  which  we  have  earthly  experience  of 
numbers.  Thus,  being  incomposite  in  nature,^^  says 
Athan.,  ''He  is  Father  of  One  Only  Son,''  Deer. 
§11.  In  truth  the  distinction  into  Persons,  as  Pe- 
tavius  remarks,  ''  avails  especially  towards  the  unity 
and  simplicity  of  God,''  vid.  de  Deo  ii.  4,  8. 

^  ''The  Father,"  says  Athan.,  "having  given  all 
things  to  the  Son,  in  the  Son  still  hath  all  things ;  and 
the  Son  having,  still  the  Father  hath  them  ;  for  the 
Son's  Godhead  is  the  Father's  Godhead,  and  thus  the 
Father  in  the  Son  takes  the  oversight  of  all  things." 
Orat.  iii.  36.  Thus  iteration  is  not  duplication  in 
respect  to  God  j  though  how  this  is,  is  the  inscrutable 
Mystery  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity.  Nothing  can  be 
named  which  the  Son  is  in  Himself,  as  distinct  from 
the  Father ;  but  we  are  told  His  relation  towards  the 
Father;  and  distinct  from  and  beyond  that  relation,  He 
is  but  the  One  God,  who  is  also  the  Father.  Such  state- 
ments are  not  here  intended  to  explain,  but  to  bring 
home  to  the  mind  luhat  it  is  which  faith  receives.  Wo 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY.  323 

say,  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit/^  a  transcendent  Three, 
but  when  we  would  abstract  a  general  idea  of 
Them  in  order  to  number  Them  as  we  number 
things  on  earth,  our  abstraction  really  does  but 
carry  us  back  to  the  One  Substance.  There  will  be 
different  ways  of  expressing  this,  but  such  seems  the 
meaning  of  such  passages  as  the  following  :  Those 
who  taunt  us  with  tritheism,^^  says  St.  Basil,  must  be 
told  that  we  confess  One  God  not  in  number,  but  in 
nature.  For  what  is  one  in  number  is  not  really  one,  nor 
single  in  nature ;  for  instance,  we  call  the  world  one  in 
number,  but  not  one  in  nature,  for  we  divide  it  into  its 
elements ;  and  man  again  is  one  in  number,  but  com- 
pounded of  body  and  soul.  ...  If  then  we  say  that  God 
is  in  nature  one,  how  do  they  impute  number  to  us,  who 
altogether  banish  it  from  that  blessed  and  spiritual 
nature  ?  For  number  belongs  to  quantity,  and  number 
is  connected  with  matter,^^  &c.  Basil.  Ep.  8,  2.  *^That 
which  saveth  us,  is  faith,  but  number  has  been  devised 
to  indicate  quantity  ....  We  pronounce  Each  of  the 
Persons  once,  but  when  we  would  number  them  up, 
we  do  not  proceed  by  an  unlearned  numeration  to  the 
notion  of  a  polytheism.^^  (vid.  the  whole  passage,)  ibid, 
de  Sp.  S.  c.  18.  ^^Why,  passing  by  the  First  Cause, 
does  he  [S.  John]  at  once  discourse  to  us  of  the 
Second?  We  will  decline  to  speak  of  '  first  ^  and 
^second; '  for  the  Godhead  is  higher  than  number  and 
succession  of  times. Chrysost.  in.  Joan.  Hom.  ii.  3  fin. 
^^In  respect  of  the  Adorable  and  most  Royal  Trinity, 
^  first ^  and  ^ second^  have  no  place;  for  the  Godhead  is 
higher  than  number  and  times. Isid.  Pel.  Ep.  3,  18. 

X  2 


324 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


He  calls/^  says  S.  Maximus^  commenting  on  Pseudo- 
Dionysius^  fecundity,  the  Father's  incomprehensible 
progression  to  the  production  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  and  suitably  does  he  say^  ^  as  a  Trinity/  since 
not  number,  but  glory  is  expressed  in  '  The  Lord  God 
is  one  Lord/''  in  Dionys.  0pp.  t.  2,  p.  101.  ''We  do 
not  understand  '  one '  in  the  Divine  Substance,  as  in 
the  creatures ;  in  whom  what  is  properly  one  is  not  to 
be  seen ;  for  what  is  one  in  number,  as  in  our  case,  is 
not  properly  one.  .  .  .  It  is  not  one  in  number,  or  as  the 
beginning  of  number^  any  more  than  It  is  as  magnitude, 
or  as  the  beginning  of  magnitude.  .  .  .  That  One  is 
ineffable  and  indescribable ;  since  It  is  Itself  the  cause 
of  all  that  is  one,  'irdcrr]^  kvdho^  evoiroiov,^'  Eulog.  ap. 
Phot.  230,  p.  864  Three  what  ?  I  answer.  Father 
and  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  See,  he  urges,  you  have 
said  Three ;  but  explain  Three  what  ?  Nay,  do  you 
number,  for  I  have  said  all  about  the  Three,  when  I 
say.  Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  Not,  as  there 
are  two  men,  so  are  They  two  Gods ;  for  there  is  here 
something  ineffable,  which  cannot  be  put  into  words, 
viz.,  that  there  should  both  be  number,  and  not 
number.  For  see  if  there  does  not  seem  to  be  number. 
Father  and  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  a  Trinity.  If  Three, 
Three  what  ?  number  fails.  Then  God  neither  is 
without  number,  nor  is  under  number.  .  .  .  They 
imply  number,  only  relatively  to  Each  Other,  not  in 
Themselves.''  August,  in  Joan.  39,  3  and  4.  ''We 
say  Three  '  Persons,'  as  many  Latins  of  authority  have 
said  in  treating  the  subject,  because  they  found  no 
more  suitable  way  of  declaring  an  idea  in  words  which 


THE  HOLY  TRINITY  IN  UNITY. 


325 


they  had  without  words.  Since  the  Father  is  not  the 
Son^  and  the  Son  not  the  Father^  and  the  Holy  Ghost 
neither  Father  nor  Son,  there  are  certainly  Three ;  but 
when  we  ask,  Three  what  ?  we  feel  the  great  poverty  of 
human  language.  However,  we  say  Three  ^  Persons/ 
not  for  the  sake  of  saying  that,  bat  of  not  saying 
nothing/^  Aug.  de  Trin.  v.  10.  Unity  is  not  number, 
but  is  itself  the  principle  of  all  things.^^  Ambros.  de 
Fid.  i.  n.  19.  That  is  truly  one,  in  which  there  is 
no  number,  nothing  in  It  beyond  That  which  is.  .  .  . 
There  is  no  diversity  in  It,  no  plurality  from  diversity, 
no  multitude  from  accidents,  and  therefore  no  number 
....  but  unity  only.  For  when  God  is  thrice  re- 
peated, and  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost  is  named, 
three  Unities  do  not  make  plurality  of  number  in  That 
which  They  are  (in  eo  quod  ipsae  sunt).^  .  .  .  This 
repetition  of  Unities  is  iteration  rather  than  numeration. 
.  .  .  A  trine  numeration  does  not  make  number,  which 
they  rather  run  into  who  make  some  dijfference  between 
the  Three.''^    Booth.  Trin.  unus  Deus,  p.  959. 

^  The  last  remark  is  also  found  in  Naz.  Orat.  31.  18. 
Many  of  these  passages  are  taken  from  Thomassin 
de  Trin.  17.  Petavius,  de  Trin.  iv.  16,  fin.,  quotes 
St.  Anselm  as  saying,  Though  there  be  not 
many  eternities,  yet,  if  we  say  eternity  in  eternity, 
there  is  but  one  eternity.  And  so  whatever  is  said  of 
God^s  essence,  if  returned  into  itself,  does  not  increase 
quantity,  nor  admit  number;  since  there  is  nothing 
out  of  God,  when  God  is  born  of  God.^^  Infinity  does 
not  add  to  infinity  ;  the  treatment  of  infinities  is  above 
us.    With  this  remark  I  end  as  I  began. 

*  The  words  from  Boethius  here  translated  *'  in  Him  which  They 


326 


UNITY  OF  EMMANUEL. 


UNITY  OF  EMMANUEL. 

It  is  well  known  tliat  the  illustration  in  the  Athan. 
Creed,  As  the  reasonable  soul  and  flesh  is  one  man^ 
so  God  and  man  is  one  Christ/^  was  taken  by  the 
Monophysites  to  imply  that  the  Divine  Nature  was 
made  dependent  on  the  flesh,  and  was  influenced  and 
circumscribed  by  it.  Man  is  partly  soul  and  partly 
body ;  he  is  of  body  and  soul,  not  body  and  soul ;  but 
Christ  is  wholly  God,  and  wholly  man,  oXo?  0eo9,  oXo? 
dvOpcoTTo^,  Orat.  iv.  35.  He  is  as  simply  God  as  if 
He  were  not  man,  as  simply  man  as  if  He  were  not 
God;  unus  atque  idem  est,^^  says  S.  Leo,  et  totus 
liominis  Alius  propter  carnem,  et  totus  Dei  Alius  prop- 
ter unam  cum  Patre  deitatem,^^  Ep.  165,  8.  Athan.  has 
anticipated  the  heresy  which  denied  this  doctrine  in  a 
very  distinct  passage  written  apparently  even  before 
the  rise  of  Arianism.  ^^It  is  the  function  of  the  soul/^ 
he  says,  to  contemplate  in  its  thoughts  what  is  within 
its  own  body;  but  not  to  operate  in  things  beyond  its 
own  body,  or  to  act  by  its  presence  on  what  is  far  from 
the  body.  Certainly  man  at  a  distance  never  moves 
or  transposes  such  things  ;  nor  could  a  man  sit  at  home 
and  think  of  things  in  heaven,  and  thereby  move  the 
suUj  or  turn  the  heaven  round.  .  .  .  Not  thus  is  the 

are,"  are  in  the  original  (p.  273,  Ed.  Lugd.,  and  p.  1122,  Ed.  Basil.), 
"  in  80  quod  ipsce  sunt,"  that  is,  rather,  "  in  That  which  They  are." 


UNITY  OF  EMMANUEL. 


327 


Word  of  God  in  man^s  nature ;  for  He  was  not  bound 
up  with  tlie  body  {o-vveheSero) ,  but  rather  He  hath 
Himself  dominion  over  it^  so  that  He  was  not  in  it 
only,  but  in  all  things ;  nay,  He  was  external  to  the 
whole  universe  and  in  the  sole  Father/^  Incarn.  V.  D. 
17.    The  same  passage  occurs  in  Serm.  Maj.  de  Fid.  11. 

It  could  not  be  otherwise.  The  Divine  Word  was 
not  a  mere  presence  or  manifestation  of  God  in  man, 
but  He  was  God  Himself  incarnate.  He  was  still 
what  He  had  ever  been,  and  will  be  from  first  to 
last,  One, — one  and  the  same,  impassible,  immutable,  in 
His  avTorrj^,  so  to  speak,  as  being  one  of  the  Eternal 
Trinity.  His  Divine  Nature  carried  with  It  on  His  in- 
carnation that  avTorr]^;  or  Personality.  So  necessary, 
so  cardinal  is  this  truth  for  the  right  holding  of  the 
great  doctrine  under  consideration,  that  the  Alexan- 
drians, St.  Cyril  at  least,  and  perhaps  St.  Athanasius, 
spoke  of  there  being  only  ^^One  Nature in  the 
Incarnate  Lord,  meaning  thereby  one  Person  (for 
Person  and  Nature  could  not  be  divided  ;  and,  if  our 
Lord^s  Nature  was  divine,  His  Person  was  divine  also), 
and  by  saying  only  one,^^  was  meant  that,  in  com- 
parison of  the  Divine  Person  who  had  taken  flesh,  what 
He  had  taken  was  not  so  much  a  nature,  (though  it 
was  strictly  a  nature,)  as  the  substance  of  a  manhood 
which  was  not  substantive. 

Whereas  the  Apostle  says,  One  Lord  Jesus  Christ,^^ 
that  unity  does  not  lie  in  the  unity  of  two  natures,  (for 
they  are  two,  not  one,)  but  in  His  Person,  which  brings 
the  two  natures  together,  which  is  and  ever  has  been 
indivisible  from  His  Divine  Nature,  and  has  absorbed 


328 


UNITY  or  EMMANUEL. 


into  Itself,  and  is  sovereign  over,  not  destroying 
thereby,  but  perpetuating.  Its  human  nature. 

^  Hence,  while  it  be  true  to  say  ^^Man  is  God/^  as 
well  as  to  say  God  is  man/^  it  is  not  true  that  man 
became  God/^  or  took  on  him  divinity/^  as  it  is  true 
to  say  God  became  man/^  because  from  first  to  last  the 
Son  and  Word  is  supreme,  independent,  and  one  and 
the  same ;  and  it  is  a  first  point  in  all  orthodox 
teaching  of  the  Incarnation  to  make  this  clear  and 
definite.  He  is  Jesus  Ghrist,^^  indeed,  but  at  the 
same  time,  ^^heri,  et  hodie,  ipse  et  in  saecula;  He  is 
now,  and  He  was  from  everlasting.  . 

^  While  He  received  no  hurt  {ovSev  i/SXaTrrero) 
Himself  by  bearing  our  sins  in  His  body  on  the  tree,  we 
men  were  redeemed  from  our  aff'ections  {iraOcou)/'  Orat. 
iii.  §  31.  And  so  i/SXaTTTero  jxev  avro^  ovSev,  Incarn. 
§  54,  fjLT]  ^XaiTToixevo^,  ibid.  §  34.  In  these  passages 
avTo<i  means  in  that  which  is  Himself,^^  i.e.,  in  His 
own  Person  or  Divine  Self,  auro?  being  used  when  the 
next  century  would  have  used  Person.'^  For  the 
sun,  too,  which  He  made,  and  we  see,  makes  its  circuit 
in  the  sky  and  is  not  defiled  by  touching,^^  &c.,  Incarn. 
§  17.  *^  As  the  rays  of  sun-light  would  not  suffer  at 
all,  though  filling  all  things  and  touching  bodies  dead 
and  unclean,  thus  and  much  more  the  spiritual  virtue 
of  God  the  Word  would  sufi*er  nothing  in  substance 
nor  receive  hurt,^^  &c.,  Euseb.  de  Laud.  Const,  p.  536 
and  538 ;  also  Dem.  Evang.  vii.  p.  348.  The  insults 
of  the  passion  even  the  Godhead  bore,  but  the  passion 
His  flesh  alone  felt ;  as  we  rightly  say  that  a  sunbeam 
or  a  body  of  flame  can  be  cut  indeed  by  a  sword  but 


UNITY  OF  EMMANUEL. 


329 


not  divided.  ...  I  will  speak  yet  more  plainly  :  the 
Godhead  [divinitas]  was  fixed  with  nails^  bnt  could  not 
Itself  be  pierced_,  since  the  flesh  was  exposed  and  offered 
room  for  the  wound,  but  God  remained  invisible/^  &c., 
Vigil,  contr.  Eutych.  ii.  9,  p.  503  (Bibl.  Patrum, 
ed.  1624).  There  were  five  together  on  the  Cross, 
when  Christ  was  nailed  to  it :  the  sun-light,  which  first 
received  the  nails  and  the  spear,  and  remained  undivided 
from  the  Cross  and  unhurt  by  the  nails,  next,^^  &c., 
Anast.  Hodeg.  c.  12,  p.  220  (ed.  1606);  also  p.  222; 
vid.  also  the  beautiful  passage  in  Pseudo-Basil :  God 
in  flesh,  not  working  with  aught  intervening  as  in  the 
prophets,  but  having  taken  to  Him  a  manhood  con- 
natural with  Himself  {(TVfjb(f)vr},  i.e.  joined  to  His 
nature),  and  made  one,  and,  through  His  flesh  akin  to 

us,  drawing  up  to  Him  all  humanity  What  was 

the  manner  of  the  Godhead  in  flesh  ?  as  fire  in  iron, 
not  transitively,  but  by  communication.  For  the  fire 
does  not  dart  into  the  iron,  but  remains  there  and 
communicates  to  it  of  its  own  virtue,  not  impaired  by 
the  communication,  yet  filling  wholly  its  recipient/^ 
Basil,  t.  2,  p.  596,  ed.  Ben.  Also  Ruflin.  on  Symb.  12  ; 
Cyril,  Quodunus,  t.  v.  p.  776;  Dam.  F.  0.,  iii.  6  fin.;  Aug. 
Serm.  7,  p.  26,  ed.  1812,  Suppl.  It  is  to  show  at  once 
the  intimacy  of  the  union  of  natures  and  the  absolute 
sovereignty  of  the  divine,  that  such  strong  expressions 
are  in  use  as  God^s  body,  God^s  death,  God^s  mother,  &c. 

%  0€ov  rjv  acofjLa-y  Orat.  iii.  §31;  also  ad  Adelph.  3 
ad  Max.  2,  and  so  rrjv  Trrco^evaao-av  t^vaiv  6eov  oXrjp 
yevofievT]!/,  c.  ApoU.  ii.  11.  to  irdOo^;  rod  \6yov,  ibid.  16, 
aap^  Tov  XoyoVy  Orat.  iii.  3  k    acojjba  ao^la^j  53,  also  ^eo? 


330 


VAPOUR. 


ev  aapfci,  Orat.  ii.  §  10;  ^eo9  eV  aco/juarti  ii.  §  12  and  15; 
X6709  iv  aapKi,  iii.  54;  X6709  ev  crco/JbarL,  Sent.  D.  8  fin. 
nrdOo^;  Xpuarov  rod  6eov  fiov,  Ignat.  Rom.  6.  6  ^eo9 
ireirovOeVy  Melit.  ap.  Anast.  Hodeg.  12.  Dei  passiones, 
TertuU.  de  Carn.  Christ.  5.  Dei  interemptores,  ibid, 
caro  Deitatis,  Leon.  Serm.  65  fin.  Deus  mortuus  et 
sepultus.  Vigil,  c.  Eut.  ii.  p.  502.  Vid.  supr.  p.  294. 
Yet  Athan.  objects  to  the  phrase,  ^^God  suS'ered  in  the 
flesh/^  i.e.  as  used  by  the  ApoUinarians.  Vid.  contr. 
ApoU.  ii.  1 3  fin.    Vid.  article  fiia  <^vai<;. 


VAPOUR. 
Vid.  art.  arroppor). 


TWO  WILLS  IN  CHRIST. 


331 


TWO  WILLS  IN  CHRIST. 

The  Monothelite  tenet  does  not  come  into  tlie  range 
of  subjects  included  in  the  foregoing  Treatises;  but  as 
far  as  I  understand  it^  it  argued  as  follows  : — 

Ifc  was  faulty  in  considering  that  no  distinction  was 
to  be  drawn  between  the  physical  and  psychical  emo- 
tions and  volitions  which  belong  to  our  nature^  and 
which  are  not  sinful,  (such  as  the  horror  of  death,)  and 
those  two  acts  of  will,  good  and  bad,  which  proceed 
from  deliberate  purpose  and  determination,  and,  as  in 
the  case  in  question,  are  of  an  ethical  character.  The 
Monothelites  held  mere  volition  to  be  an  act  of  will, 
and  to  have  the  nature  of  sin,  or  at  least  to  be  incon- 
sistent with  that  moral  perfection  which  is  possible  to 
human  nature,  and  was  realised  in  our  Lord.  It  follows 
that  He  could  not  have  among  His  special  constituents 
as  man  one  which  was  of  so  dubious  a  complexion ;  in 
other  words.  He  had  no  human  will,  and  therefore  He 
had  but  one  will,  viz.,  that  which  He  had  by  being 
God. 

Such  a  resolution  of  the  true  doctrine  led  by  a  few 
steps  to  Eutychianism,  that  is,  to  a  confusion  of  the 
received  teaching  on  the  Incarnation,  and  was  seen  to 
be  dangerous  when  it  came  before  the  Schools  and 
Councils  of  the  Church,  but  till  then  it  serves  as  an 


332 


TWO  WILLS  IN  CHRIST. 


instance  of  the  verbal  mistakes  into  which  the  clearest 
and  most  saintly  intellects  may  fall  by  living  a  little  too 
early  to  have  the  experience  necessary  for  a  judgment 
on  dogmatic  questions.    Athanasius  says  : — 

^^And  as  to  His  saying.  If  it  be  possible^  let  the  cup 
pass,  observe  how,  though  He  thus  spake.  He  rebuked 
Peter,  saying.  Thou  savoiirest  not  the  things  that  be  of 
God,  but  those  that  be  of  men.  For  He  willed  what 
He  deprecated,  for  therefore  had.  He  come;  but  His 
was  the  willing,  (since  for  it  He  came,)  but  the  terror  be- 
longed to  the  flesh.  Wherefore  as  man  He  utters  this 
speech  also,  and  yet  both  were  said  by  the  Same,  to 
show  that  He  was  God,  willing  in  Himself,  but  when 
He  had  become  man,  having  a  flesh  that  was  in  terror. 
For  the  sake  of  this  flesh  He  combined  His  own  will 
with  human  weakness,  that  destroying  this  aff*ection 
He  might  in  turn  make  man  undaunted  in  the  thought 
of  death/^  Orat.  iii.  §  57. 

^  Several  centuries  later  Anastasius  says: — ^^I 
say  not,  perish  the  thought,  that  there  are  two  wills 
in  Christ  at  variance  with  each  other,  as  you  consider, 
and  in  opposition ;  nor  at  all  a  will  of  flesh,  or  of 
passion,  or  evil.  .  .  But,  since  it  was  perfect  man 
that  He  took  on  Him,  that  He  might  save  him  whole, 
and  He  is  perfect  in  manhood,  therefore  we  call  that 
sovereign  disposal  of  His  orders  and  commands  by  the 
name  of  the  Divine  will  in  Christ,  and  we  understand 
by  human  will  the  intellectual  souPs  power  of  willing, 
given  it  after  the  image  and  likeness  of  God,  and 
breathed  into  it  by  God,  when  it  was  made,  by  means 
of  this  power  to  prefer  and  to  obey,  and  to  do  the 


TWO  WILLS  IN  CHRIST. 


333 


divine  will  and  tlie  divine  orders.  If  then  the  soul 
of  Christ  was  destitute  of  the  power  of  reason^ 
will,  and  preference^  it  is  not  indeed  after  the  image 
of  God,  nor  consubstantial  with  our  souls  ....  and 
Christ  cannot  be  called  perfect  in  manhood.  Christ 
then,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  has,  according  to  the 
Godhead,  that  lordly  will  which  is  common  to  Father 
and  Holy  Ghost ;  and,  as  having  taken  the  form  of  a 
servant,  He  does  also  the  will  of  His  intellectual  and 

immaculate  soul,  &c  Else  if  this  will  be  taken 

away,  He  will  according  to  the  Godhead  be  subject, 
and  fulfil  the  Father^s  will  as  a  servant  ....  as  if  there 
were  two  wills  in  the  Godhead  of  Father  and  of  Son, 
the  Father^s  that  of  a  Lord,  the  Son^s  that  of  a  ser- 
vant/^   Anast.  Hodeg.  i.  p.  12. 


334 


WISDOM. 


WISDOM. 

^  Athan.  considers  that  the  Eternal  Wisdom^  one  of 
the  proper  appellatives  of  the  Son^  is  that  Wisdom 
which  in  Prov.  ix.  1^  viii.  22,  &c.,  is  said  to  be  created^ 
and  that  this  creation  is  to  be  understood  of  His  takinor 
on  Him  a  created  nature.  He  says,  Wisdom  has  made 
herself  a  house  ;  it  is  plain  that  our  body,  which  it  took 
upon  itself  to  become  man,  is  Wisdom's  House.''^  Orat. 
ii,  §  44.  And  he  is  followed  by  St.  Leo,  ut  intra 
intemerata  viscera  aodificante  sibi  sapentia  domum, 
Verbum  caro  fieret.'''  Leon.  Epist.  31,  2.  Also  Didymus 
de  Trin.  iii.  3,  p.  337  (ed.  1769).  August.  Civ.  D.  xvii. 
20.  Cyril,  in  Joann.  iv«  4,  p.  384,  5.  Max.  Dial.  iii. 
p.  1029  (ap.  Theod.  ed.  Schulz).  Hence  Clem.  Alex.  6 
X6709  iavTov  jevva,    Strom,  v.  3.  vid.  art.  Holy  Spirit. 

But  without  denying  that  our  Lord  is  signified  in  the 
above  passage,  as  the  Prototype,  Author,  and  Pattern 
of  all  wisdom,  it  is  more  natural  to  apply  it,  as  Athan. 
also  does,  to  the  attribute  or  grace  called  wisdom  as 
displayed  in  the  creation,  whether  in  the  original  crea- 
tion or  in  the  new.  Hence  he  says,  The  Only-begotten 
and  very  Wisdom  of  God  is  Creator  and  Framer  of  all 
things;  for  in  Wisdom  hast  Thou  made  them  all,  he 
says,  and  the  earth  is  full  of  Thy  creation.  But  that 
what  came  into  being  might  not  only  be,  but  be  good, 
it  pleased  God  that  His  own  Wisdom  should  con- 


WISDOM. 


335 


descend  to  the  creatures^  so  as  to  introduce  an  impress 
and  semblance  of  Its  Image  on  all  in  common  and  on 
each,  that  what  was  made  might  be  manifestly  wise 
works  and  worthy  of  God.  For,  as  of  the  Son  of  God, 
considered  as  the  Word,  our  word  is  an  image,  so  of 
the  same  Son,  considered  as  Wisdom,  is  the  wisdom 
which  is  implanted  in  us  an  image ;  in  which  wisdom 
we,  having  the  power  of  knowledge  and  thought, 
become  recipients  of  the  All-framing  Wisdom,  and 
through  It  we  are  able  to  know  Its  Father/^  Orat.  ii. 
§  78. 

^  As  Athan.  in  the  above  passage  considers  wisdom  as 
the  image  of  the  Creator  in  theUniverse,  so  elsewhere  he 
explains  it  of  the  Church,  de  Incarn.  contr.  Ar.  6,  if  it  be 
his  (and  so  Didym.  Trin.  iii.  3  fin.),  where  his  teaching 
about  the  Word  is  very  much  the  same  as  in  Orat.  ii. 
§  56.  S.  Jerome  understands  by  it  the  creation  of  the 
new  man  in  holiness,  ^Put  ye  on  Christ  Jesus  ;^  for  He 
is  the  new  man,  in  whom  all  we  believers  ought  to  be 
clad  and  attired.  For  what  was  not  new  in  the  man 
which  was  taken  on  Him  by  our  Saviour  ?  .  .  .  He  there- 
fore who  can  imitate  His  conversation  and  bring  out  in 
himself  all  virtues,  he  has  put  on  the  new  man,  and 
can  say  with  the  Apostle,  ^  Not  I,  but  Christ  liveth 
in  me.'  .  .  .  Only  in  great  deeds  and  works  the  word 
^  creation  ^  is  used.  .  .  The  new  man  is  the  great  work 
of  God,  and  excels  all  other  creatures,  since  he  is  said  to 
be  framed,  as  the  world  is  said  to  be,  and  is  created  the 
beginning  of  God^s  ways,  and  in  the  commencement 
of  all  the  elements.'^  in  Eph.  iv.  23,  24.  Naz.  alludes  to 
the  interpretation  by  which  Wisdom  is  the  plan,  system. 


336 


WISDOM. 


or  the  laws  of  the  Universe^  Orat.  30.  2^  though  he  does 
not  so  explain  it  himself.  Epiphanius  says,  Scrip- 
ture has  nowhere  confirmed  this  application  of  Prov. 
viii.  22,  nor  has  any  Apostle  referred  it  to  Christ.''^  (vid. 
also  Basil,  contr.  Eunom  ii.  20.)  He  adds,  How 
many  wisdoms  of  God  are  there,  improperly  so  called  ! 
but  One  Wisdom  is  the  Only-begotten,  not  improperly 
so  called,  but  in  truth  ....  The  very  word  ^  wisdom  ^ 
does  not  oblige  me  to  speak  of  the  Son  of  God.^^  Haer. 
69,  pp.  743 — 745.  He  proceeds  to  show  how  it  may 
apply  to  Him. 

^  Didymus  argues  at  length  in  favour  of  interpret- 
ing the  passage  of  created  wisdom,  Trin.  iii.  1.  c.  He 
says  that  the  context  makes  this  interpretation  neces- 
sary, as  speaking  of  ^Hhe  fear  of  God^^  being  the 

beginning  of  it,  of  doing  it,^^  and  of  kings  and 
rulers  reigning  by  means  of  it.  Again  it  is  said  that 
wisdom  was  with  the  Creator,  who  was  Himself  the 
Son  and  Word.  The  Son  and  Word,  the  Framer  of  all, 
seeing  and  being  able  from  the  first,  long  suffering  and 
waiting  for  repentance  in  the  unrighteous  and  wrong- 
thinking  multitude,  when  He  had  finished  all,  delighted 
in  wisdom  which  was  in  His  creatures,  and  was  glad  in 
it,  rejoicing  in  His  own  work.^^  p.  336.  He  contrasts 
with  this  the  more  solemn  style  used  by  the  sacred 
writer  when  he  speaks  of  the  Uncreated  Wisdom : 
virep^vm  fcal  W97rep  vtt  eicifKr]^6co<^  6av/JLd^(ov  ava^Oe^y" 
^erai,  e.g.  Prov.  xxx.  3,  p.  338. 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


337 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD, 

LoGOS^  verhiim,  being  a  term  already  used  in  the 
schools  of  heathen  philosophy,  was  open  to  various 
misunderstandings  on  its  appearance  in  the  theology  of 
Revealed  teaching.  In  the  Church  it  was  both  syno- 
nymous with  and  corrective  of  the  term  Son ;  but 
heretics  had  almost  as  many  senses  of  the  term  as  they 
had  sects. 

^  It  is  a  view  familiar  to  the  Fathers  that  in  this  con- 
sists our  Lord^s  Sonship^  viz._,  that  He  is  the  Word,  or  as 
S.  Augustine  says^  ^^Christumideo  Filium  quia  Verbum.^^ 
Aug.  Ep.  102,  n.  11.  ''If  God  is  the  Father  of  a  Word, 
why  is  not  He  who  is  begotten  a  Son  ?  de  Deer. 
§  17  ;  Orat.  iv.  §  12.  If  I  speak  of  Wisdom,  I  speak 
of  His  OjaPspring.^'  Theoph.  ad  Autolyc.  i.  3.  The 
Word,  the  genuine  Son  of  Mind.^^  Clem.  Protrept.  p.  78; 
and  Dionysius,  eanv  6  /ikv  otov  irarrjp  6  vov^  rod  Xoyov,'' 
Sent.  Dion.  §  23,  fin.  Petavius  discusses  this  subject 
accurately  with  reference  to  the  distinction  between 
Divine  Generation  and  Divine  Procession,  de  Trin.  vii. 
14. 

IT  But  the  heretics,  says  Athan.,  dare  to  separate 
Word  and  Son,  and  to  say  that  the  Word  is  one  and 
the  Son  another,  and  that  first  was  the  Word  and  then 
the  Son.  Now  their  presumption  takes  various  forms ; 
for  some  say  that  the  man  whom  the  Saviour  assumed 

VOL.  II.  Y 


338 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


is  the  Son ;  and  others^  that  both  the  man  and  the 
Word  then  became  Son  when  they  were  united.  And 
others  say  that  the  Word  Himself  then  became  Son 
when  He  became  man  ;  for  from  being  Word,  they  say, 
He  became  Son^  not  being  Son  before,  but  only  Word.^^ 
Orat.  iv,  §  15.  The  Valentinians,  in  their  system  of 
Eons,  had  ah-eady  divided  the  Son  from  the  Word  ;  but 
they  considered  the  fjbopoy€vr)<;  first,  the  X6709  next. 

The  title  Word  implies  the  ineffable  mode  of  the 
Son^s  generation,  as  distinct  from  material  parallels, 
vid.  Gregory  Nyssen,  contr.  Eunom,  iii.  p.  107 ;  Chry- 
sostom  in  Joan.  Hom.  2,  §  4 ;  Cyril  Alex.  Thesaur.  5, 
p.  37.    Also  it  implies  that  there  is  but  One  Son. 

^  ^^As  there  is  one  Origin,^^  says  Athan.,  and  there- 
fore one  God,  so  one  is  that  Substance  and  Subsistence 
[ovala  Kol  vTToaraaL^)  which  indeed  and  truly  and  really 
is,  and  which  said  I  am  that  I  am,  and  not  two,  lest  there 
be  two  Origins ;  and  from  the  One,  a  Son  in  nature 
and  truth  is  Its  proper  Word,  Its  Wisdom,  Its  Power, 
and  inseparable  from  It.  And  as  there  is  not  another 
substance,  lest  there  be  two  Origins,  so  the  Word 
which  is  from  that  One  Substance  has  no  dissolution, 
is  not  a  sound  significative,  but  is  a  substantial  Word 
and  substantial  Wisdom,  which  is  the  true  Son.  For 
were  He  not  substantial,  God  would  be  speaking  into 
the  air,  and  having  a  body  in  nothing  different  from  that 
of  men ;  but  since  He  is  not  man,  neither  is  His  Word 
according  to  the  infirmity  of  man.  For  as  the  Origin 
is  one  Substance,  so  Its  Word  is  one,  substantial,  and 
subsisting,  and  Its  Wisdom.  For  as  He  is  God  from 
God,  and  Wisdom  from  the  Wise,  and  Word  from  the 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


339 


Rational^  and  Son  from  Father,  so  is  He  from  Subsis- 
tence Subsistent,  and  from  Substance  Substantial  and 
Substantive,  and  Being  from  Being/^  Orat.  iv.  §  1. 

For  the  contrast  between  tbe  Divine  Word  and  the 
human  which  is  Its  shadow,  vid.  also  Orat.  iv.  1^  above; 
Iren.  Haer.  ii.  13,  n.  8;  Origen.  in  Joan.  t.  i.,  p.  23,  25; 
Euseb.  Demonstr.  v.  5,  p.  230  ;  Cyril.  Cat.  xi.  10;  Basil, 
Hom.  div.  xvi.  3;  Nyssen  contr.  Eunom.  xii.  p.  350; 
Orat.  Cat.  i.  p.  478 ;  Damasc.  F.  0.  i.  6 ;  August, 
in  Psalm.  44,  5. 

Men  have  many  words,  and  after  those  many,  not 
any  one  of  them  all ;  for  the  speaker  has  ceased,  and 
thereupon  his  word  fails.  But  God^s  Word  is  one  and 
the  same,  and  as  it  is  written,  remainetli  for  ever^  not 
changed,  not  first  one  and  then  another,  but  existing 
the  same  always.  For  it  behoved  that,  God  being  one, 
one  should  be  His  Image,  one  His  Word,  one  His  Wis- 
dom.'' Orat.  ii.  §  36.  vid.  contr.  Gent.  41.  ad  Ep.  Mg.  16. 
Epiph.  H93r.  65,  3.  Nyss.  in  Eun.  xii.  p.  349.  Origen. 
(in  a  passage,  however,  of  questionable  doctrine)  says, 
"  as  there  are  gods  many,  but  to  us  one  God  the  Father, 
and  many  lords,  but  to  us  one  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  so 
there  are  many  words,  but  we  pray  that  in  us  may  exist 
the  Word  that  was  in  the  beginning,  with  God,  and  was 
God,''  in  Joan.  tom.  ii.  3.  Many  things,  it  is  acknow- 
ledged, does  the  Father  speak  to  the  Son,"  say  the 
Semi-Arians  at  Ancyra,  but  the  words  which  God 
speaks  to  the  Son  are  not  sons.  They  are  not  sub- 
stances of  God,  but  vocal  energies ;  but  the  Son, 
though  a  Word,  is  not  such,  but,  being  a  Son,  is  a  sub- 
stance."    Epiph.  Hoor.  73,  12.     The  Semi-Arians  are 

Y  2 


340 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


here  speaking  against  Sabellianism^  which  took  the 
same  ground  here  as  Arianism. 

IT  Vid.  the  article  on  the  Nicene  Tests  for  those  ante- 
Nicene  theologians^  who^  though  they  undoubtedly  were 
upholders  of  the  Homoiision  and  good  Catholics  when 
they  wrote^  nevertheless  seem  to  have  held  that  the 
Word^  after  existing  from  eternity,  was  born  to  be  a 
Son  at  ^Hhe  beginning^'  and  on  the  beginning  of  time, 
and  then  became  the  Creator,  the  Pattern,  the  con- 
servative power  of  the  whole  universe  : — these  writers 
were  such  as  Tatian,  Tertullian,  Novatian,  &c.  There 
was  a  parallel  theory  to  theirs,  and  by  which  they 
were  apparently  influenced,  in  the  heathen  and  Jewish 
schools.  The  view  of  the  Logos  as  evhiddeTo^  and  as 
irpo<^opLKo^,  as  the  Word  conceived  and  the  Word 
uttered,  the  Word  mental  and  the  Word  active  and 
effectual — to  distinguish  the  two  senses  of  Logos, 
thought  and  speech — came  from  the  Stoics,  and  is 
found  in  Philo,  and  was,  under  certain  limitations, 
allowed  in  Catholic  theology.  Damasc.  P.  0.  ii. 
21.  To  use,  indeed,  either  of  the  two  absolutely  and 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  other,  would  have  involved 
some  form  of  Sabellianism,  or  Arianism,  as  the  case 
might  be ;  but  each  term  might  correct  the  defective 
sense  of  the  other.  That  the  use  was  not  oversafe  would 
appear  from  its  history  in  the  Church,  into  which  the 
above  theologians,  by  their  mode  of  teaching  the  r^kvvr\<TL^ 
of  the  Word,  introduce  us.  Theophilus  does  not  scruple, 
in  teaching  it,  to  use  the  very  terms,  endiathetic  and 
prophoric.  God  made  all  things  out  of  nothing,  he 
says.  .  .  .     Having  His  own  Word  endiathetic  in  His 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


341 


own  womb,  He  begat  Him  together  with  His  own  Wis- 
dom, bringing  Him  forth  before  the  universe  was.^^ 
Again  he  speaks  of  the  Word  of  God,  who  also 
is  His  Son,  who  was  ever  [itairavTo^)  endiathetic  in 
the  heart  of  God,  .  .  .  God  begat  Him  to  be  jproplioric, 
the  first-born  of  all  creation/^  ad  Autol.  ii.  10,  22. 

While  S.  Theophilus  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  both  en- 
diathetic and  prophoric,  S.  Cyril  seems  to  consider  Him 
endiathetic,  in  Joan.  i.4,p.  39,  though  he  also  says,  ^^This 
word  of  ours,  TTpo^opiico^;,  is  generated  from  mind  and 
unto  mind,  and  seems  to  be  other  than  that  which  stirs  in 
the  heart,  &c.,  &c.  ...  so  too  the  Son  of  God,  proceed- 
ing from  the  Father  without  division,  is  the  expression 
and  likeness  of  what  is  proper  to  Him,  being  a  subsistent 
Word,  and  living  from  a  Living  Father.^^  Thesaur. 
p.  47.  When  the  Fathers  deny  that  our  Lord  is  the 
Trpo(f)opLKo<;  X6709,  they  only  mean  that  that  title  is  not, 
even  in  the  fulness  of  its  philosophical  idea,  an  adequate 
representative  of  Him,  a  word  spoken  being  insubstan- 
tive,  vid.  Athaa.  Orat.  ii.  35.  Hil.  de  Syn.  46.  Cyr. 
Catech.  xi.  10.  Damas.  Ep.  ii.  p.  203,  nec  prolativum, 
ut  generationem  ei  demas,^^  for  this  was  the  Arian  doc- 
trine. The  first  Sirmian  Council  of  the  Arians  anathema- 
tises those  who  use  of  the  Son  either  name.  So  does 
the  Arian  Macrostich.  The  Son,^^  said  Eunomius,  ^^is 
other  than  the  endia^ietic  Word,  or  Word  in  intellec- 
tual action,  of  which  partaking  and  being  filled  He  is 
called  the  JVophoric  Word,  and  expressive  of  the 
Father^s  substance,  that  is,  the  Son.^^  Cyril  in  Joan, 
p.  31.  The  Gnostics  seem  to  have  held  the  Xojo'^  irpo^ 
(jiopLfco^;,  Iren.  Haer.  ii.  12,  n.  5.    Marcellus  is  said  by 


342 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


Eusebius  to  have  considered  our  Lord  as  first  the  one 
and  then  the  other.  Eccl.  Theol.  ii.  15.  Sabellius 
thought  our  Lord  the  irpo^opLKo<^,  according  to  Epiph. 
Haer.  p.  398.  cf.  Damasc.  H^r.  62.  Paul  of  Samosata^  the 
ivSidOerof;.  Epiph.  Haer.  65,  passim.  Eusebius,  Eccles. 
Theol.  ii.  17,  describes  our  Lord  as  the  Trpocj^opcKO'^ 
while  disowning  the  word. 

^  Athan.  speaks,  contr.  Gent.,  of  man  as  having, 
besides  grace,  from  the  Giver,  also  his  own  natural 
virtue  proper  from  the  Eather^s  Word ;  of  the 
mind  seeing  the  Word,  and  in  Him  the  Word^s 
Father  also,^^  2 ;  of  ^*  the  way  to  God  being,  not  as 
God  Himself,  above  us  and  far  off,  or  external  to 
ns^  but  in  us,^^  30,  &c.,  &c.  vid.  also  Basil,  de  Sp.  S. 
n.  19.  Athan.  also  speaks  of  the  seed  of  Wisdom  as 
being  a  reason  combined  and  connatural  with  every- 
thing that  came  into  being,  which  some  are  wont  to 
call  seminal,  inanimate  indeed  and  unreasoning  and 
unintelligent,  but  operating  only  by  external  art  ac- 
cording to  the  science  of  Him  who  sowed  it.''^  contr. 
Gent.  40. 

This  is  drawn  out  somewhat  differently,  and  very 
strikingly,  in  contr.  Gent.  43,  &c.  The  Word  indeed  is 
regarded  more  as  the  Governor  than  as  the  Life  of  the 
world,  but  He  is  said  to  be,  o  TrapaSo^oTroto^  koX  Oavfjua' 
T07roio<;  Tov  6eov  X6709  (pcorl^cov  ifoX  ^(ooTToioyv  .... 
ifcao-TO)  rrjv  ISlav  ivipyetav  airohihov^,  &c.  44.  Shortly 
before  the  Word  is  spoken  of  as  the  Principle  of  per- 
manence^  41  fin. 

^  For  it  was  fitting,^^  says  Ath.  elsewhere,  whereas 
God  is  One,  that  His  Image  should  be  One  also,  and 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


343 


His  Word  One,  and  One  His  Wisdom.  Wherefore  I  am 
in  wonder  how,  whereas  God  is  One,  these  men,  after 
their  private  notions,  introduce  many  images  and 
wisdoms  and  words,  and  say  that  the  Father^ s  proper 
and  natural  Word  is  other  than  the  Son,  by  whom  He 
even  made  the  Son,  and  that  He  who  is  really  Son  is 
but  notionally  called  Word,  as  vine,  and  way,  and 
door,  and  tree  of  life ;  and  that  He  is  called  Wisdom 
also  only  in  name,  the  proper  and  true  Wisdom  of  the 
Father,  which  co-exists  ingenerately  with  Him,  being 
other  than  the  Son,  by  which  He  even  made  the  Son, 
and  named  Him  Wisdom  as  partaking  of  Wisdom/^ 
Orat.  ii.  §  37.  That  is,  they  allowed  Him  to  be  really 
the  Son,  though  they  went  on  to  explain  away  the 
name,  and  argued  that  He  was  but  by  a  figure  the 
Word,  TToWol  \6joL  since  there  were,  and  He  was 
not  ouS'  ifc  TToWcov  eh^  Sent.  D.  25.  Also  Ep. 
jSig.  14;  Origen  in  Joan.  tom.  ii.  3;  Euseb.  De- 
monstr,  v.  5,  p.  229,  fin. ;  contr.  Marc,  p.  4,  fin. ; 
contr.  Sabell.  i.  p.  4;  August,  in  Joan.  Tract,  i.  8.  Also 
vid.  Philo^s  use  of  Xoyoi  for  Angels,  as  commented  on 
by  Burton,  Bampt.  Lect.  p.  556.  The  heathens  called 
Mercury  by  the  name  of  X6709.  Vid.  Benedictine  note 
f.  in  Justin,  Ap.  i.  21. 

%  ''If  the  Wisdom  which  is  in  the  Father  is  other 
than  the  Lord,  Wisdom  came  into  being  in  Wisdom ; 
and  if  God's  Word  is  Wisdom,  the  Word  too  has 
come  into  being  in  a  Word;  and  if  God's  Word  is 
the  Son,  the  Son  too  has  been  made  in  the  Son.'' 
Ep.  JEg.  14.  vid.  also  Deer.  §  8,  and  Orat.  iii.  2, 
64.    And  so  S.  Austin,     If  the  Word  of  God  was 


344 


THE  WORD  OF  GOD. 


Himself  made,  by  what  other  Word  was  He  made  ? 
If  you  say,  that  it  is  the  Word  of  the  Word^  by  whom 
that  Word  is  made,  this  I  say  is  the  only  Son  of  God. 
But  if  you  say  the  Word  of  the  Word,  grant  that  He  is 
not  made  by  whom  all  things  are  made ;  for  He  could 
not  be  made  by  means  of  Himself,  by  whom  are  made 
all  things/^  in  Joan.  Tract,  i.  11.  Vid.  a  parallel 
argument  with  reference  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  Athan, 
Serap.  i.  25. 


345 


Index  of  Annotations   on    Theological   Terms  in  the 
foregoing  Treatises  alphabetically  arranged. 

PAGE 

The  ^ Ay€vvr,Tov J  or  Ingenerate  3d7 

The  'Aeiyevv^s  350 

"Adeos,  ddeoTTjs       ..........  354 

Alu)v       ............  358 

"AKparos  ...........  360 

'AX-qeeia  362 

*A\oyLaj  'AXoybs     .       .       .       .        .       .       .       .       .  .361 

"AvSpuwos  366 

*AvTLd0(TLS  tCjV  IdLUJULCLTWP  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .367 

The  dirapdWaKTov         .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .  .370 

^AiravyaajuLa    ...........  374 

'AwoppoT}         ...........  375 

* Ap€Lo/jLavLTaL   .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .       .  .377 

*Apx^  380 

The  "ArpeTTTos        .  383 

BovXt]^  Kara  ^ovk-qaLv      .        .       .        .       .        .       .        .  .385 

Thvnfxa  396 

The  TevTjTbv,  Tevv-qrov  398 

Arj/jLLovpybs      ...........  400 

Aia^oXLKbs  402 

ErSos  403 

'Epdiaderos,  vid.  Word. 

"EuaapKos  wapovaia         .........  405 

'E^alpfTou  405 

The  'E^ovkSvtlou  406 

'ETrLpoia  407 

ETTto-Tre/pas     ...........  409 


346 


PAGE 

'^vae^eia   410 

QeapdpLKT]  iu^pyeia  .        .       .        .        .       .       .        .  .412 

Oeofxdxos,  XpLcrTOfjLCLxos    .........  415 

0e6T7?s   416 

QedTOKos         ...........  419 

KaTair^raa-fJiCL         ..........  420 

KtjpLos,  Kvpim         ..........  422 

A670S     ............  423 

lAerovaLoL        ...........  424 

Mi'a  <t)iu<n$   426 

Movapxi-o.   429 

Movoyevy]";       .        .        .        .        .       .        .       .       .        .        .  430 

The"0/^oioz/   432 

O/xooiycrtos        ...........  438 

'Opofiara         ...........  443 

"Opyavov         ...........  450 

'Op(96s   452 

Ovaia,  '6v        ...........  454 

UepL^oXrj   457 

IlTjyr)   458 

UpolBoXrj   458 

UpCijToroKos     ...........  459 

'Fevards   463 

^vyKarajBaaLS  ...........  464 

'ZvfjL(3€^r}K6s   466 

The  TeXetou   469 

Tptds   473 

TLoircLTCop   475 

XpLCTTo/uLaxos    ...........  476 


347 


Annotations  on  Theological   Terms   in   the  foregoing 
Treatises  alphahetically  arranged. 


The  ^A^evvrjToVy  or  Ingenerate, 

It  had  been  usual  in  the  Schools  of  Philosophy,  as 
we  contrast  Creator  and  creatures,  the  Infinite  and  the 
finite,  the  Eternal  and  the  temporal,  so  in  like  manner  to 
divide  all  beings  into  the  Unoriginate  or  Ingenerate,  the 
avapya  or  a^yevrira,  on  the  one  hand,  and  those  on  the 
other  which  have  an  origin  or  beginning.  Under  the 
ingenerate,  which  was  a  term  equivalent  to  uncreate,^^ 
fell — according  as  particular  philosophies  or  heresies 
determined — the  universe,  matter,  the  soul  of  man,  as 
well  as  the  Supreme  Being,  and  the  Platonic  ideas. 
Again,  the  Necplatonists  spoke  of  Three  Principles  as 
beyond  time,  that  is,  eternal :  the  Good,  Intellect,  and 
the  Soul  of  the  world,  (l^heod.  Affect.  Cur.  ii.  p.  750.) 
Plotinus,  however,  in  his  Enneads,  seems  to  make  Good 
the  sole  apxv  ;  77  <ip%r/  dyevvrjro^y  (5.  Enn.  iv.  1,)  while 
Plato  says,  etre  apxv^  ^''^'^^  ^PX^"^  (Theod.  ibid.  p.  749, 
Tim.  p.  48),  and  in  his  Pha)drus,  p.  246,  he  calls  the 
soul  of  man  ingenerate  or  ayevrjrop.  The  Vaientinians 
(Tertull.  contr.  Valent.  7,  and  Epiph.  Ha)r.  31,  10) 
and  Basilides  (Epiph.  Ilsor.  24)  apphed  the  term  to  the 


348  THE  'AryeVVTJTOV^  OR  INGENERATE. 

Supreme  God.  The  word  thus  selected  to  denote  the 
First  Principle  or  Cause,  seems  to  have  been  spelt  some- 
times with  one  v,  sometimes  with  two.  Vid.  art.  yevrjro^;, 

%  And  so  too  with  Christian  writers,  and  with  like 
variety  in  the  spelling,  this  was  the  word  expressing 
the  contrast  between  the  First  Cause  or  causes,  and  all 
things  besides.  Ignatius  distinctly  applies  it  to  our 
Lord  in  His  Divine  Nature,  doubling  the  v  in  the  Cod. 
Med.  There  is  One  Physician,  generate  and  ingene- 
rate,  .  .  .  from  Mary  and  from  God.^^  (Ephes.  7.)  vid. 
Athan,  Syn.  §  47.  Theophilus  says,  o  ryevrjrb^;  kol 
iTpoaherj<^  iarr  6  Se  dy6vr]T0<^  ovSevo<;  irpoaheiTat,  (ad 
Autol.  ii.  10.)  Clement  of  Alexandria,  ev  rb  dyevrjrov,  in 
contrast  to  our  Lord  (Strom,  vi.  7,  p.  769).  Dionysius 
Alex,  even  entertains  the  hypothesis  that  dyevvrjaia 
is  the  very  ovo-ca  of  God  (Euseb.  Prasp.  vii.  19),  which 
the  Arians  took  advantage  of  for  the  purposes  of  their 
heresy,  (vid.  Epiph.  Haer.  76,)  laying  it  down  as  a 
fundamental  axiom  that  nothing  yevvrjrov  could  be 
God.  Hence  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  in  the  beginning 
of  the  controversy,  rested  his  heresy  on  the  dictum^ 
ev  TO  dyevvr]TOV,  adding  ev  Se  to  vtt  avrov  dXyOco^,  koX 
ovfc  6^'  ov(7La^  avTov.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  5.  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  too  speaks  of  the  Supreme  Being  as  dyevvrjTo^i 
Kal  Tcov  oXcov  TroLrjTT]^  ^€09.  (Ev.  Dem.  iv.  7,  p.  167.) 

The  word  dp^V  expressed  the  same  attribute  of  the 
Divine  Being,  and  furnished  the  same  handle  to  the 
Arian  disputant  for  his  denial  of  our  Lord^s  Divinity. 
The  ap^?7  of  all  was  avap')(o^  ;  how  then  could  our 
Lord  be  the  dpj^r],  that  is,  God,  if  He  was  a  Son  ? 
But  the  solution  of  both  forms  of  the  question  was 


THE  'AyeVVr]TOP,  OR  ingenerate.  349 

obvious,  being  as  easy  as  that  of  the  stock  fallacies 
inserted,  half  as  exercises,  half  as  diversions  for  the  stu- 
dent, to  relieve  a  dry  treatise  on  Logic.  It  was  enough 
for  Catholics  to  answer  that  ap'xr]  had  notoriously  two 
meanings,  origin  and  beginning ;  that  in  the  philoso- 
phical schools  these  senses  were  understood  to  go 
together,  but  that  Christianity  had  introduced  a  sepa- 
ration of  them  j  that  our  Lord^s  Sonship  involved  His 
having  no  beginning  because  He  was  God,  but  His 
having  an  origin,  because  He  was  Son.  And  in  like 
manner,  the  Son  of  God  was,  as  God,  ingenerate,  that 
is,  without  a  beginning,  and  as  Son  generate,  that  is, 
with  an  origin. 

Thus  Clement  calls  Him  avapj(o<^  ^PXV)  Arius 
scofl&ngly  dyevvrjToyevr]^, 

As  to  the  assumption  that  nothing  generate  could 
be  God,  A  than,  maintains  on  the  contrary  that  our 
Lord  cannot  but  be  God  because  He  is  generate,  vid. 
art.  Son, 


350 


THE  ^Aecy€VV6<;* 


The  ^Aei^evvh, 

Athan.^  as  the  other  Fathers,  insists  strongly  on  the 
perfection  and  the  immutability  of  the  Divine  Being ; 
from  which  it  follows  that  the  birth  of  the  Son  must 
have  been  from  eternity,  for,  if  He  exists  now.  He  must 
have  existed  ever.  I  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not/^  It 
was  from  dimness  and  inaccuracy  even  in  orthodox 
minds,  in  apprehending  this  truth,  that  Arianism  arose 
and  had  its  successes. 

Athan.  says,  Never  was  the  substance  of  the 
Father  incomplete,  so  that  what  belonged  to  it  should 
be  added  afterwards ;  on  the  contrary,  whereas  it 
belongs  to  men  to  beget  in  time,  from  the  imperfection 
of  their  nature,  God^s  Offspring  is  eternal,  for  God^s 
nature  is  ever  perfect/^    Orat.  i.  §  14.    (Disc.  n.  24.) 

Though  a  parent  be  distinct  in  time  from  his  son,  as 
being  man,  who  himself  has  come  into  being  in  time, 
yet  he  too  would  have  had  his  child  ever  co-existent 
with  him  except  that  his  nature  was  a  restraint,  and 
made  it  impossible.  Let  these  say  what  is  to  restrain 
God  from  being  always  Father  of  the  Son  ?  Orat.  i. 
§  26,  27;  iv.  §  15. 

Man,^^  says  S.  Cyril,  inasmuch  as  he  had  a 
beginning  of  being,  also  has  of  necessity  a  beginning 
of  begetting,  as  what  is  from  him  is  a  thing  generate ; 
but  ....  if   God^s   substance   transcend    time,  or 


THE  ^Aetyevve^, 


351 


origin^  or  interval,  His  generation  also  will  transcend 
these ;  nor  does  it  deprive  the  Divine  Nature  of  the 
power  of  generating,  that  He  doth  not  generate  in  time. 
For  other  than  human  is  the  manner  of  divine  gene- 
ration ;  and  together  with  God^s  existing  is  His 
generating  implied,  and  the  Son  was  in  Him  by  gene- 
ration, nor  did  His  generation  precede  His  existence, 
but  He  was  always,  and  that  by  generation. Thesaur. 
V.  p.  35.  vid.  also  p.  42,  and  Dialog,  ii.  fin.  This  was 
retorting  the  objection ;  the  Arians  said,  How  can 
Grod  be  ever  perfect,  who  added  to  Himself  a  Son  ? 
Athan.  answers,  How  can  the  Son  not  be  eternal, 
since  God  is  ever  perfect  ?  vid.  Greg.  Nyssen.  contr. 
Eunom.  Append,  p.  142.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  x.  p.  78.  As 
to  the  Son^s  perfection,  Aetius  objects,  ap.  Epiph.  Haer. 
76,  p.  925,  6,  that  growth  and  consequent  accession 
from  without  were  essentially  involved  in  the  idea  of 
Sonship ;  whereas  S.  Greg.  Naz.  speaks  of  the  Son  as 
not  areXi]  irporepov,  elra  reXecov,  coaTrep  z^o/^o?  tt;? 
rjfjLeTepa^  yevveaeco^.  Orat.  20.  9,  fin.  In  like  manner, 
S.  Basil  argues  against  Eunomius,  that  the  Son  is 
reXe^o?,  because  He  is  the  Image,  not  as  if  copied, 
which  is  a  gradual  work,  but  as  a  ^xapaicTrjpy  or  im- 
pression of  a  seal,  or  as  the  knowledge  communicated 
from  master  to  scholar,  which  comes  to  the  latter  and 
exists  in  him  perfect,  without  being  lost  to  the  former, 
contr.  Eunom.  ii.  16  fin. 

It  follows  from  this  perfection  and  unchangeableness 
of  the  Divine  Nature,  that,  if  there  is  in  the  begin- 
ning a  gennesis  of  the  Son,  it  is  continual  : — that  is  the 
doctrine  of  the  aeiyevvh*    Athan.  says  that  there  is  no 


352 


THE  ^Aei^evvh. 


irav\a  rrj^;  r^evvri(Te(o<;.  Orat.  iv.  §  12.  Again^  Now  man^ 
begotten  in  time^  in  time  also  himself  begets  the 
child;  and  whereas  from  nothing  he  came  to  be, 
therefore  his  word  also  is  over  and  continues  not.  But 
God  is  not  as  man,  as  Scripture  has  said ;  but  is 
existing  and  is  ever;  therefore  also  His  Word  is 
existing  and  is  everlastingly  with  the  Father,  as 
radiance  from  light.^^  vid.  Orat.  ii.  §  35. 

H  In  other  words,  by  the  Divine  jevvyaif;  is  not  meant 
so  much  an  act,  as  an  eternal  and  unchangeable  fact,  in 
the  Divine  Essence.  Arius,  not  admitting  this,  objected 
at  the  outset  of  the  controversy  to  the  phrase  always 
Father,  always  Son,^''  Theod.  Hist.  i.  4,  p.  749,  and 
Eunomius  argues  that,  if  the  Son  is  co-eternal  with 
the  Father,  the  Father  was  never  a  Father  in  act,  €V€pyo<;, 
but  was  apyo^,^^  Oyril.  Thesaur.  v.  p.  41.  S.  Cyril 
answers  that  it  is  worlcs^  €pja,  that  are  made  e^wdev, 
from  without;  but  that  our  Lord  is  neither  a    work^^  nor 

from  without.''^  And  hence,  he  says  elsewhere,  that, 
while  men  are  fathers  first  in  posse  then  in  act,  God  is 
SvpdfieL  T6  /cat  ivepyeta  Trarrip,  Dial.  2,  p.  458.  Victo- 
rinus  in  like  manner  says  that  God  is  potentia  et 
actione  Deus  sed  in  aeterna,^^  Adv.  Ar.  i.  33;  and  he 
quotes  S.  Alexander,  speaking  apparently  in  answer  to 
Arius,  of  a  semper  generans  generatio.''^  And  Arius 
scoffs  at  d€ij€vvr]<;  and  dy€vv7]T0j€V'ij<;.  Theod.  Hist.  i. 
4,  p.  749.  And  Origen  had  said,  o  acoTTjp  del  yevvdrac, 
ap.  Routh.  Reliq.  t.  4,  p.  304,  and  S.  Dionysius  calls 
Him  the  Radiance,  avap'xpv  /cat  detyevh,  Athan.  S.  D. 
15.  And  Athan.,  As  the  Father  is  good  always  and  by 
nature,  so  is  He  always  generative  by  nature.''^  Orat. 


THE  'Aetyevve^. 


353 


iii.  §  66.  S.  jiugustine  too  says^  Semper  gignit  Pater, 
et  semper  nascitur  Filius/^  Ep.  238,  n.  24.  Petav.  de 
Trin»  ii.  5,  n.  7,  quotes  the  following  passage  from 
Theodorus  Abucara,  Since  the  Son^s  generation  does 
but  signify  His  having  His  existence  from  the  Father, 
which  He  has  ever,  therefore  He  is  ever  begotten. 
For  it  became  Him,  who  is  properly  {fcvpim)  the  Son, 
ever  to  be  deriving  His  existence  from  the  Father,  and 
not  as  we  who  derive  its  commencement  only.  In  us 
generation  is  a  w^ay  to  existence;  in  the  Son  of  God  it 
denotes  the  existence  itself;  in  Him  it  has  not  existence 
for  its  end,  but  it  is  itself  an  end,  reXo^,  and  is  perfect, 
rikeLov,''  Opusc.  26.    Vid.  art.  Father  Almiglity, 

Didymus  however  says,  ovk  en  yevvdrai,  de  Trin.  iii. 
3,  p.  338,  but  with  the  intention  of  maintaining  our 
Lord^s  perfection  and  eternity,  as  Hil.  Trin.  ii.  20. 
Naz.  Orat.  20.  9  fin.  Basil,  de  Sp.  S.  n.  20  fin.  It  is 
remarkable  that  Pope  Gregory  too  objects  to  Semper 
nascitur  as  implying  imperfection,  and  prefers  Sem- 
per natus  est.''^  Moral.  29.  1 ;  but  this  is  a  question  of 
words. 


VOL.  II. 


z 


354 


This  epithet^  in  its  passive  sense^  as  used  by  St. 
Paul^  Epli.  ii.  12,  (not  in  tlie  sense  of  disowning  or 
denying  God,  but  of  being  disowned  by  HimJ  is 
familiar  with  the  Fathers  in  their  denunciation  of 
heretics  and  heathen,  and  with  the  heathen  against 
Christians  and  others,  who  refused  to  worship  their 
country^s  gods.  Of  course  the  active  sense  of  the 
word  is  here  and  there  more  or  less  implied  in  the 
passive. 

Thus  Athan.  says  of  Arius  that  he  is  on  all  sides 
recognised  as  godless  (atheist)  Arius/^  Orat.  i.  §  4.  And 
of  the  Anomoean  Aetius,  Aetius  who  was  surnamed 
godless/^  Syn.  §  6.  Asterius  too  he  seems  to  call 
atheist,  including  Valentinus  and  the  heathen,  Orat. 
iii.  §  64.  Eustathius  calls  the  Arians  av6 podirov^  aOeov^, 
who  were  attempting  Kparrjo-ai  rov  Oelou.  Theod.  Hist, 
i.  7,  p.  760.  And  Arius  complains  that  Alexander 
had  expelled  him  and  his  from  Alexandria,  &>?  avOpco- 
irov^;  aOeov^,  ibid.  i.  4. 

^  Since  Christ  was  God,  to  deny  Him  was  to  deny 
God;   but  again,  whereas  the  Son  had  revealed  the 

unknown  God,^^  and  destroyed  the  i:eign  of  idols,  the 
denial  of  the  Son  was  bringing  back  idolatry  and  its 
attendant  spiritual  ignorance.  Thus  in  the  Orat.  contr. 
Gent.  §  29  fin.,  written  before  the  Arian  controversy. 


355 


tie  speaks  of  ^Hlie  Greek  idolatry  as  full  of  all 
Atheism  or  ungodliness^  and  contrasts  with  it  the 
knowledge  of  the  Guide  and  Pramer  of  the  Universe, 
the  Father^s  Word/^  that  through  Him  we  may 
discern  His  Father,  and  the  Greeks  may  know  how  far 
they  have  separated  themselves  from  the  truth/^  And, 
Orat.  ii.  §  43,  he  classes  Arians  with  the  Greeks,  who, 
though  they  have  the  name  of  God  in  their  mouths, 
incur  the  charge  of  Atheism,  because  they  know  not 
the  real  and  true  God,  tlie  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.'^  (vid.  also  Basil,  in  Eunom.  ii.  22.)  Shortly 
afterwards  Athan.  gives  a  further  reason  for  the  title, 
observing  that  Arianism  was  worse  than  previous 
heresies,  such  as  Manicheism,  inasmuch  as  the  latter 
denied  the  Incarnation,  but  Arianism  tore  from  God^s 
substance  His  connatural  Word,  and,  as  far  as  its 
words  went,  infringed  the  perfections  and  being  of  the 
First  Cause.  And  so  ad  Ep.  ^g.  §  17  fin.  he  says, 
that  it  alone,  beyond  other  heresies,  has  been  bold 
against  the  Godhead  Itself  in  a  mad  way,  {/jLaptfccore- 
poVy)  denying  that  there  is  a  Word,  and  that  the 
Father  was  always  Father.''^ 

^  In  like  manner  he  says,  ad  Serap.  iii.  2,  that  if 
a  man  says  that  the  Son  is  a  creature,  who  is  Word  and 
Wisdom,  and  the  Impress,  and  the  Radiance,  whom 
whoso  seeth  seeth  the  Father,^^  he  falls  under  the 
text,  Whoso  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  hath  not  the 
Father.^^  Such  a  one,^^  he  continues,  will  in  no 
long  time  say,  as  tlte  fool,  there  is  no  GodJ'  In  like 
manner  he  speaks  of  those  who  think  the  Son  to  be 
the  Spirit,  as     without  (e^w)  the  Holy  Trinity,  and 

z  2 


356 


atheists/^  Serap.  iv.  6^  because  they  do  not  really 
believe  in  the  God  that  is^  and  there  is  none  other  but 
He/^  And  so  again,  As  the  faith  delivered  [in  the 
Holy  Trinity]  is  one,  and  this  unites  us  to  God,  and  he 
who  takes  aught  from  the  Trinity,  and  is  baptised  in 
the  sole  name  of  the  Father  or  of  the  Son,  or  in  Father 
and  Son  without  the  Spirit,  gains  nothing,  but  remains 
empty  and  incomplete,  both  he  and  the  professed 
administrator,  (for  in  the  Trinity  is  the  perfection,) 
[initiation,]  so  whoso  divides  the  Son  from  the  Father, 
or  degrades  the  Spirit  to  the  creatures,  hath  neither 
the  Son  nor  the  Father,  but  is  an  atheist  and  worse  than 
an  infidel,  and  anything  but  a  Christian/^   Serap.  i.  30. 

^  Elsewhere,  he  speaks  more  generally,  as  if  Ari- 
anism  introduced  ^^an  Atheism  or  rather  Judaism 
against  the  Scriptures,  being  next  door  to  Heathenism, 
so  that  its  disciple  cannot  be  even  named  Christian, 
for  all  such  tenets  are  contrary  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and 
he  makes  this  the  reason  why  the  Nicene  Fathers 
stopped  their  ears  and  condemned  it,  Ep.  ^g.  §  13. 
Moreover,  he  calls  the  Arian  persecution  worse  than  the 
pagan  cruelties,  and  therefore  a  Babylonian  Atheism,^^ 
Ep.  Encycl.  §  5,  as  not  allowing  the  Catholics  the  use 
of  prayer  and  baptism,  with  a  reference  to  Dan.  vi, 
11,  &c.  Thus  too  he  calls  Constantius  atheist,  for  his 
treatment  of  Hosius,  ovre  top  6eov  <po^7]6eh  o  aOeo^y 
Hist.  Arian.  45 ;  and  Nazianzen  calls  Lucius,  on  account 
of  his  cruelties  in  Alexandria,  ^^this  second  Arius, 
the  most  copious  river  of  the  atheistic  fountain.-'^  Orat. 
25.  11.  And  Palladius,  the  Imperial  officer,  is  avrjfy 
a0€o^,    ibid.  12. 


357 


^  Anotlier  reason  for  the  title  seems  to  have  lain  in 
the  idolatrous  character  of  Arian  worship  on  its  oivn 
showing y  viz.,  as  paying  divine  honours  to  One  whom 
they  yet  maintained  to  be  a  creature. 

^  As  to  other  heresies,  Eusebius  uses  the  word  of  the 
Sabellian,  Eccl.  Theol.  p.  63  ;  of  Marcellus,  p.  80 ;  of 
Phantasiasts,  p.  64 ;  of  Valentinus,  p.  114.  Basil  applies 
it  to  Eunomius. 

^  As  to  the  heathen,  Athan.  speaks  of  the  elScoKcov 
aOeoTTjTa,  contr.  Gent.  §  14  and  46  init.  Orat.  iii.  §  67, 
though  elsewhere  he  contrasts  apparently  atheism  with 
polytheism,  Orat.  iii.  §  15  and  16.  Nazianz.  speaks  of 
the  iro\v6eo<^  aOeta,  Orat.  25. 15.  vid.  also  Euseb.  Eccl. 
Theol.  p.  73. 

If  On  the  other  hand,  Julian  says  that  Christians 
preferred  atheism  to  godliness.''^  vid.  Suicer.  Thes.  in 
voc.  It  was  a  popular  imputation  upon  Christians,  as 
it  had  been  before  on  philosophers  and  poets,  some  of 
whom  better  deserved  it.  On  the  word  as  a  term  of 
reproach,  vid.  Voet.  Disput.  9,  t.  1,  pp.  115,  &c.  195. 


358 


Alcov. 


Alcop, 

By  al(ov,  age^  seems  to  be  meant  duration,  or  tlie 
measure  of  duration,  before  or  independent  of  the 
existence  of  motion,  which  is  the  measure  of  time.  As 
motion,  and  therefore  time,  are  creatures,  so  are  the 
ages.  Considered  as  the  measure  of  duration,  an  age 
has  a  sort  of  positive  existence,  though  not  an  ovaia  or 
substance,  and  means  the  same  as  world,^^  or  an 
existing  system  of  things  viewed  apart  from  time  and 
motion,  vid.  Theodor.  in  Hebr.  i.  2.  Our  Lord  then 
is  the  Maker  of  the  ages,  thus  considered,  as  the 
Apostle  also  tells  us,  Hebr.  xi.  3,  and  God  is  the  King 
of  the  ages,  1  Tim.  i.  17,  or  is  before  all  ages,  as  being 
eternal,  or  7rpoaccovio<;,  However,  sometimes  the  word 
is  synonymous  with  eternity  :  as  time  is  to  things 
which  are  under  time,  so  ages  to  things  which  are 
everlasting,^^  Damasc.  Fid.  Orth.  ii.  1,  and  ages  of 
ages^^  stands  for  eternity;  and  then  the  ^*  ages,^^  or 
measures  of  duration,  may  be  supposed  to  stand  for 
the  iSeat  or  ideas  in  the  Divine  Mind,  which  seems  to 
have  been  a  Platonic  or  Gnostic  notion.  Hence 
Synesius,  Hymn,  iii,,  addresses  the  Almighty  as  alayvo- 
TOKe,  Parent  of  the  Ages.  Hence  sometimes  God 
Himself  is  called  the  Age,  Clem.  Alex.  Hymn.  Pged.  iii. 
fin.,  or  the  Age  of  ages,  Pseudo-Dion,  de  Div.  Nom.  5, 
p.  581,  or  again,  aldovio^.  Theodoret  sums  up  what 
has  been  said  thus  :     Age  is  not  any  subsisting  sub- 


AiddV, 


359 


stance,  but  is  an  interval  indicative  of  time^  now 
infinite,  when  God  is  spoken  of,  now  commensurate 
with  creation,  now  with  human  life/^  Haer.  v.  6.  If 
then,  as  St.  Paul  says  in  Hebr.  xi.  3,  the  Word  is  Maker 
of  the  ages.  He  is  independent  of  duration  altogether ; 
He  does  not  come  to  be  in  time,  but  is  above  and  beyond 
it,  or  eternal,  vid.  Deer.  18.  Elsewhere  he  says,  The 
words  addressed  to  the  Son  in  the  144th  Psalm,  ^  Thy 
kingdom  is  a  kingdom  of  all  ages,^  forbid  any  one  to 
imagine  any  interval  at  all  in  which  the  Word  did  not 
exist.  For  if  every  interval  is  measured  by  ages,  and 
of  all  the  ages  the  Word  is  King  and  Maker,  therefore, 
whereas  no  interval  at  all  exists  prior  to  Him,  it  were 
madness  to  say,  ^  There  was  once  when  the  Everlasting 
(ala)VLo<;)  was  not.'' Orat.  i.  12.    And  so  Alexander: 

Is  it  not  unreasonable  that  He  who  made  times,  and 
ages,  and  seasons,  to  all  of  which  belongs  ^  was  not,^ 
should  be  said  not  to  be  ?  for,  if  so,  that  interval  in 
which  they  say  the  Son  was  not  yet  begotten  by  the 
Father,  precedes  that  Wisdom  of  God  which  framed 
(ill  things.''^  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  736.  vid.  also  Basil, 
de  Sp.  S.  n.  14.    Hilar,  de  Trin.  xii.  34. 

The  subject  is  treated  of  at  length  in  Greg.  Nyssen. 
contr.  Eunom.  i.  t.  2.  Append,  p.  93 — 101.  vid.  also 
Ambros.  de  Fid.  i.  8 — 11.  As  time  measures  the 
material  creation,  so  ages  were  considered  to 
measure  the  immaterial,  as  the  duration  of  Angels. 
This  had  been  a  philosophical  distinction.  Timasus 
says,  elfcdov  iarc  )(p6vo^  ro)  dyevvdrcp  ^p6z/ri),  ov  alcova 
TTOTayopevo/jLe^;.  Vid.  also  Philo,  p.  298,  Quod  Deus 
Immort.  G.    Euseb.  Laud.  C.  p.  501.    Naz.  Orat.  38.  8. 


360 


"AKparo^* 


Simple^  absolute^  untempered^  direct;  an  epithet  applied 
both  by  Catholics  and  Arians  to  the  creative  Hand  of 
God,  as  if  the  very  contact  of  the  Infinite  with  the  finite, 
which  creation  involves,  would  extinguish  the  nascent 
creature  which  it  was  bringing  into  being.  The 
Arians  attempted  to  find  in  this  doctrine  an  argument 
in  favour  of  their  own  account  of  our  Lord^s  nature. 
They  said  that  our  Lord  was  created  to  be  the  instru- 
ment whereby  the  world  could  be  created  without  that 
perilous  intervention  of  the  Almighty  Hand,  which  made 
creation  almost  impossible.  Deer.  §  8,  Orat.  ii.  §  25,  30. 
Epiph.  Hser.  76,  p.  951.  Cyril.  Thes.  pp.  150,  241.  de 
Trin.  iv.  p.  523.  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  21,  Orat.  ii.  29. 
But  how  was  it,  asked  Catholics,  that  creation  was  pos- 
sible at  all,  that  is,  in  the  case  of  our  Lord  Himself,  on 
supposing  Him  a  creature  ?  vid.  Deer.  §  8.  Catholics  on 
their  side  had  no  diSiculty  to  overcome  :  they  con- 
sidered that  the  Creator,  by  a  special  and  extraor- 
dinary grace,  supplied  whatever  was  necessary  for 
bearing  the  mighty  Hand  of  God,  as  also  a  parallel 
grace  is  supplied  for  receiving  safely  the  great  privi- 
leges of  the  Gospel,  especially  the  Holy  Eucharist. 

Not  as  if  He  were  a  creature,  nor  as  having  any 
relation  in  substance  with  the  universe,  is  He  called 
Firstborn  of  it;  but  because,  when  at  the  beginning 


"AKparo^. 


361 


He  framed  the  creatures^  He  condescended  to  them 
that  it  might  be  possible  for  them  to  come  into  being. 
For  they  could  not  have  endured  His  untempered 
nature  and  His  splendour  from  the  Father^  unless, 
condescending  by  the  Father^s  love  for  man,  He  had 
supported  them  and  taken  hold  of  them  and  brought 
them  into  substance."'^  Orat.  ii.  §  64. 

^  He  does  not  here  say  with  Asterius  that  God  could 
not  create  man  immediately,  .  .  .  but  that  He  did  not 
create  him  without  at  the  same  time  infusing  a  grace 
or  presence  from  Himself  into  his  created  nature,  to 
enable  it  to  endure  His  external  plastic  hand ;  in  other 
words,  that  man  was  created  in  Him,  not  as  something 
external  to  Him  (in  spite  of  the  hia  and  ev  in  reference 
to  the  first  and  second  creation,  In  Hlud  omn.  2).  Vid. 
art.  Avian  Tenets,  &c.,  and  Gent.  47,  where  the 
(TvyKaTd^aaL<^  is  spoken  of. 


362 


Truth,  whether  true  doctrine  or  true  reasoning,  means 
the  objective  truth  in  contrast  to  subjective  opinion  or 
private  judgment.  Sometimes  akrjOeia  is  used  by  itself, 
sometimes  aXTjOeia^  X6709,  sometimes  X6709  (vid.  arts. 
Rule  of  Faith  and  6p66<;).  E.g.  6  tt}?  akrjOeia^  \6<yo<; 
i\€y)(^6Cy  Orat.  ii.  35.  co?  6  r?}?  aXrjOeta^  aTryrec  \6709, 
Ap.  c.  Ar.  36,  where  it  is  contrasted  with  co?  r^OeXov 
(vid.  above,  art.  Private  Judgment)  ;  also  Scrap,  ii.  2. 
Epiphanius  :  6  r?}?  a\.  X.  avTnrL'TrTei  avrcp,  Hser.  71,  p. 
830.  Eusebius  :  6  tt}?  a\.  \.  /3oa,  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  p.  62, 
and  avTL^O&y^erai  avrcp  [ikya  ^orjaa^  6  tt)^  aX.  X.  ibid, 
iii.  p.  164.  And  the  Council  of  Sardica  :  Kara  rbv  ri}? 
aX.  X.  ap.  Athan.  Apol.  contr.  Ar.  46,  where  it  seems 
equivalent  to  fairness  or  impartiality.^^  Asterius  : 
oi  T7}9  aX.  airo^aivovraL  Xoyta/jbGLj  Orat.  ii.  37,  i.  32.  de 
Syn.  §  18  cir.  tin.,  and  so  also  TO69  aX.  Xoyta/Jbol^;,  Sent. 
D.  19.  And  so  also,  rj  aX,  hurfKey^e,  Orat.  ii.  §  18.  r] 
(})V(TL<;  Kal  rj  aX.  draw  the  meaning  to  themselves,^^  §  5 
init.  Tov  Xojov  SeLKvvvro';,  ibid.  3  init.  eheUvvev  6  X6709, 
13  fin.  T?}?  aX.  heL^da7]<^,  65  init.  60,  eXey^xovrat  irapa 
T7]^  aX7]6eLa<^,  63,  rj  aX^Oeia  Beifcvvac,  70  init.  r?}?  aX. 
fjLapTvpr](Td(T7](;,  1  init.  to  ttj^  dX,  cj)p6v7]/LLa  fjLeyaXrjyopelv 
TTpeirel,  §  31  init.  and  Deer.  17  fin.  In  some  of  these 
instances  the  words  dXrjOeia,  X6709,  &c.,  are  almost 
synonymous  with  the  Regula  Fidei;  vid.  irapa  rrjv 
dXrjOeiav,  Orat.  ii.  §  36,  and  Origen  de  Princ.  Praef.  1 
and  2. 


363 


^  Had  these  expositions  proceeded  from  orthodox 
men  {opeoBo^cov) ,  Hosius/'  &c.,  &c.  Ep.  Mg,  8.  And, 

Terms  do  not  disparage  His  Nature ;  rather  that 
Nature  draws  to  Itself  those  terms,  and  changes  them/^ 
Orat.  ii.  §  3.  Also  de  Mort.  Ar.  fin.  And  vid.  Leont. 
contr.  Nest.  iii.  41.  (p.  581,  Canis.)  He  here  seems 
alluding  to  the  Semi-Arians,  Origen,  and  perhaps  the 
earlier  Fathers. 

^  One  of  the  characteristic  points  in  Athan^asius  is  his 
constant  attention  to  the  sense  of  doctrine,  or  the  mean- 
ing of  writers,  in  preference  to  the  very  words  used. 
Thus  he  scarcely  uses  the  symbol  o/jloovctlov,  (one  in  sub- 
stance,) throughout  his  Orations,  and  in  the  de  Synod, 
acknowledges  the  Semi-Arians  as  brethren.  Hence, 
Deer.  §  18,  he  says  that  orthodox  doctrine  is  revered 
by  all,  though  expressed  in  strange  language,  provided 
the  speaker  means  religiously,  and  wishes  to  convey 
by  it  a  religious  sense.''^  vid.  also  §  21.  He  says  that 
Catholics  are  able  to  speak  freely,^^  or  to  expatiate, 
TrapprjaLa^o/uieOa,  out  of  Divine  Scripture."'^  Orat.  i. 
§  9.  vid.  de  Sent.  Dionys.  §  20  init.  Again  :  The 
devil  spoke  from  Scripture_,  but  was  silenced  by  the 
Saviour ;  Paul  spoke  from  profane  writers,  yet,  being 
a  saint,  he  has  a  religious  meaning. de  Syn.  §  39. 
Again,  speaking  of  the  apparent  contrariety  between 
two  Councils,  It  were  unseemly  to  make  the  one  con- 
flict with  the  other,  for  all  their  members  are  Fathers ; 
and  it  were  profane  to  decide  that  these  spoke  well 
and  those  ill,  for  all  of  them  have  slept  in  Christ. 
§  43;  also  §  47.  Again:  Not  the  phrase,  but  the 
meaning  and  the  religious  life,  is  the  recommendation 
of  the  faithful.^^  ad  Ep.  JEg.  §  9. 


364 


This  epithet  is  used  by  Athan.  against  tlie  Arians^ 
as  if,  by  denying  the  eternity  of  the  Logos  (Reason 
or  Word),  first,  they  were  denying  the  Intellectual 
nature  of  the  Divine  Essence ;  and,  secondly,  were  for- 
feiting the  source  and  channel  of  their  own  rational 
nature. 

1.  As  to  the  first  of  these,  he  says,  ^^Imputing  to  God^s 
nature  an  absence  of  His  Word,  aXoylav,  .  .  ,  they  are 
most  impious/^  Orat.  i.  §  14.  Again,  Is  the  God, 
who  is,  ever  without  His  rational  Word?^*  Orat.  i. 
§  24,  iv.  §  4  and  14.  Also  Sent.  D.  16,  23,  &c.  Scrap, 
ii.  2.  Athenag.  Leg.  11.  Tat.  contr.  Graec.  5.  Hippol. 
contr.  Noet.  10.  Nyssen.  contr.  Eunom.  vii.  p.  216. 
Orat.  Catech.  1.  Naz.  Orat.  29.  17  fin.  Cyril.  Thesaur. 
xiv.  p.  145.  (vid.  Petav.  de  Trin.  vi.  9.) 

^  It  must  not  be  supposed  from  these  instances  that 
the  Fathers  meant  that  our  Lord  was  literally  what  is 
called  the  attribute  of  reason  or  wisdom  in  the  Divine 
Essence,  or  in  other  words  that  He  was  God  merely 
viewed  as  God  is  wise ;  which  would  be  a  kind  of  Sabel- 
lianism.  But,  whereas  their  opponents  said  that  He 
was  but  called  Word  and  Wisdom  after  the  attribute, 
they  said  that  such  titles  marked,  not  only  a  typical  re- 
semblance to  the  attribute,  but  so  full  a  correspondence 
and  (as  it  were)  coincidence  in  character  with  it,  that 


365 


whatever  relation  that  attribute  had  to  God,  such  in  kind 
had  the  Son ; — that  the  attribute  was  the  Son^s  sym- 
bol, and  not  His  mere  archetype ; — that  our  Lord  was 
eternal  and  proper  to  God,  because  that  attribute  was 
so,  which  was  His  title,  vid.  Athan.  Ep.  -^g.  14; — that 
our  Lord  was  that  Essential  Eeason  and  Wisdom,  not 
hy  which  the  Father  is  wise,  but  ivitliout  which  the 
Father  was  not  wise; — not,  that  is,  in  the  way  of  a 
formal  cause,  but  in  fact.  Or,  whereas  the  Father 
Himself  is  Reason  and  Wisdom,  the  Son  is  the  neces- 
sary issue  of  that  Reason  and  Wisdom,  so  that,  to  say 
that  there  was  no  Word,  would  imply  there  was  no 
Divine  Reason;  just  as  a  radiance  supposes  a  light ;  or, 
as  Petavius  remarks,  Trin.  vi.  9,  as  the  eternity  of  the 
Original  involves  that  of  the  Image  :  tt)^  viroardaeo^^ 
v'Trap')(pvar]<^,  Travrco^  €v0v^  elvat  Sec  top  ')(apaicTr}pa  kol 
elKova  Tavrrj^,  Orat.  i.  §  20.  vid.  also  §  31.  Deer.  §  13. 
Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  737. 

^  Secondly,  he  says  of  the  Arians  themselves. 
Denying  the  Word  of  God,  Divine  Reason  have  they 
forfeited/^  Deer.  §  2.  And  again,  ^^If  they  impute 
change  to  the  Word,  their  own  reason  is  in  peril. ''^  Orat. 
i.  §  35.  Hence  Arianism,  as  denying  the  Word,  is 
essentially  madness.  Has  not  a  man  lost  his  mind 
who  entertains  the  thought  that  God  is  Wordless  and 
Wisdomless  ? Orat.  ii.  §  32.  This  will  help  us  to 
understand  how  it  is  he  calls  them  dpeLOfxavlrai,  vid. 
art.  in  voc. 


366 


"Av6p(07ro^ 

In  Greeks  and  homo  in  Latin,  are  used  by  the  Fathers 
to  signify  our  Lord^s  manhood,  and  again,  human 
nature,  with  an  abruptness  which,  were  it  not  so  fre- 
quent, would  be  taken  to  give  some  sanction  to 
Nestorianism. 

Thus  Athan.,  speaking  of  His  receipt  of  grace,  says. 

The  Word  being  united  to  the  man/^  Orat.  iv.  §  7. 

Separating  the  hypostasis  of  God*s  Word  from  the 
Man  from  Mary,^^  ibid.  §  35.  I,  the  Word,  am  the 
Chrism,  and  that  which  has  the  Chrism  from  Me  is  the 
man,^^  ibid.  It  illustrates  this  use  of  the  word,  that  it 
is  also  used  for  human  nature;  e.g.,  Of  that  was 
6  avOpcoiro^  in  want,  because  of  .  .  .  the  flesh  and  of 
death,^^  Orat.  i.  §  41,  vid.  also  iv.  §  6. 

^  I  will  set  down  one  or  two  specimens  of  the  parallel 
use  of  homo  among  the  Latins  :  Deus  cum  homine  mis- 
cetur;  hominem  induit,^^  Cypr.  Idol.  ed.  Ven.  p.  538. 
"Assumptus  homo  in  FiliumDei/^Leon.  Serm.  28,  p.  101. 

Suus  [the  Word's]  homo,''  ibid.  22,  p.  70.  Hie  homo," 
Ep.  31,  p.  855.  Hie  homo,  quem  Deus  suscepit."  Aug. 
Ep.  24,  3.  vid.  the  author's  Tract.  Theol.  jjuia  <^v(ji^,  fiu. 


AvTihoCFL^  TCOV  lSlCD/jLCLTCOV , 


367 


Since  God  and  man  are  one  Person^  we  are  saved 
from  the  confusion  which  would  otherwise  follow  from 
the  union  of  two  contrary  natures.  We  may  say  intel- 
ligibly that  God  is  man  and  man  is  God,  because  the 
attributes  of  those  two  contrary  natures  of  Christ  do 
not  rest  and  abide  in,  and  thereby  destroy,  each  other, 
but  belong  to  the  one  Person,  and  become  one  because 
they  are  His ;  and  when  we  say  that  God  becomes  man, 
we  mean  that  the  Divine  Person  becomes  man;  and 
when  we  say  that  a  man  is  the  object  of  our  worship, 
we  mean  that  He  is  worshipped  who  is  Himself  also 
truly  a  man. 

The  word  Person/^  as  the  received  term  for  ex- 
pressing this  union  of  natures,  is  later  than  Athan., 
who  uses  instead  ^^He^^  and  ^^His,^^  the  personal  pro- 
nouns ;  but  no  writer  can  bring  out  the  theological 
idea  more  forcibly  than  he. 

^  ovK  aXkov,  aXka  rod  Kvpiov*  and  so  ovic  erepov  tlvo^, 
Incarn.  18;  also  Orat.  i.  §  45,  and  iv.  35.  Cyril.  Thes. 
p.  197,  and  Anathem.  11,  who  defends  this  phrase 
against  the  Orientals. 

^  Ihiov  is  another  word  by  which  Athan.  signifies  the 
later  word  Person.''^  For  when  the  flesh  suffered, 
the  Word  was  not  external  to  it ;  and  therefore  is  the 
passion  said  to  be  His :  and  when  He  did  divinely  His 


368 


Father's  works^  the  flesh  was  not  external  to  Him^  but 
in  the  body  itself  did  the  Lord  do  them/^  &c.  .  .  .  fxera 
T(ov  IBlcov  Ka6o)v,  &c.    Orat.  iii.  §  31,  32,  3. 

For  XBloVj  which  occurs  so  frequently  in  Athan.,  vid. 
also  Cyril.  Anathem.  11.  18 lotto Lov/juevov,  Orat.  iii.  §  33 
and  38.  ad  Epict.  6.  fragm.  ex  Euthym.  (t.  i.  p.  1275, 
ed.  Ben.)  Cyril,  in  Joann.  p.  151.  And  olKelcoTat,  contr. 
Apoll.  ii.  16,  Cyril.  Schol.  de  Incarn.  t.  v.  p.  782, 
Concil.  Eph.  t.  1,  pp.  1644,  1697,  (Hard.)  Damasc. 
F.  0.  iii.  3,  p.  208,  (ed.  Yen.)  Vid.  Petav.  de  Incarn. 
iv.  15. 

For  KOivoVj  opposed  to  l^LoVy  vid.  Orat.  iii.  §  32,  51. 
Cyril.  Epp.  p.  23  ;     communem,'^  Ambros.  de  Fid.  i.  94. 

Vid.  Orat.  iv.  6.  This  interchange  is  called  theolo- 
gically the  clvtlSoo-l^  or  communicatio  IBtcofjidTcov.  Be- 
cause of  the  perfect  union  of  the  flesh  which  was  assumed, 
and  of  the  Godhead  which  assumed  it,  the  names  are 
interchanged,  so  that  the  human  is  called  from  the  divine 
and  the  divine  from  the  human.  Wherefore  He  who 
was  crucified  is  called  by  Paul,  Lord  of  glory,  and  He 
who  is  worshipped  by  all  creation  of  things  in  heaven, 
in  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  is  named  Jesus,^'  &c. 
Nyssen.  in  Apoll.  t.  2,  pp.  697,  8. 

And  on  account  of  this,  the  properties  of  the  flesh 
are  said  to  be  His,  since  He  was  in  it,  such  as  to 
hunger,  to  thirst,  to  sufl'er,  to  weary,  and  the  like,  of 
which  the  flesh  is  capable ;  while  on  the  other  hand 
the  works  proper  to  the  Word  Himself,  such  as  to  raise 
the  dead,  to  restore  sight  to  the  blind,  and  to  cure  the 
woman  with  an  issue  of  blood.  He  did  through  His 
own  body.  The  Word  bore  the  infirmities  of  the  flesh, 


^Avrihoort^  rcov  ISico/jLaTCOV, 


369 


as  His  own,  for  His  was  the  flesh ;  and  the  flesh  minis- 
tered to  the  works  of  the  Godhead,  because  the  Godhead 
was  in  it,  for  the  body  was  God^s/^    Orat.  iii.  §  31. 

The  birth  of  the  flesh  is  a  manifestation  of  human 
nature,  the  bearing  of  the  Virgin  a  token  of  divine 
power.  The  infancy  of  a  little  one  is  shown  in  the 
lowliness  of  the  cradle,  the  greatness  of  the  Highest  is 
proclaimed  by  the  voices  of  Angels.  He  has  the  rudi- 
ments of  men  whom  Herod  impiously  plots  to  kill.  He 
is  the  Lord  of  all  whom  the  Magi  delight  suppliantly 
to  adore,  &c.,  &c.  To  hunger,  thirst,  weary,  and  sleep 
are  evidently  human;  but  to  satisfy  five  thousand  on 
five  loaves,  and  to  give  the  Samaritan  living  water,^^ 
&c.,  &c.  .  .  Leon.  Ep.  28,  4.  Serm.  51.  Ambros.  de  Fid. 
ii.  n.  58.  Nyssen.  de  Beat.  t.  1,  p.  767.  Cassian.  Incarn. 
vi.  22.  Aug.  contr.  Serm.  Ar.  c.  8.  Plain  and  easy  as 
such  statements  seem  in  this  and  some  parallel  notes, 
they  are  of  the  utmost  importance  in  the  Nestorian 
and  Eutychian  controversies. 

^  If  any  happen  to  be  scandalised  by  the  swathing 
bands,  and  His  lying  in  a  manger,  and  the  gradual 
increase  according  to  the  flesh,  and  the  sleeping  in  a 
vessel,  and  the  wearying  in  journeying,  and  the  hunger- 
ing in  due  time,  and  whatever  else  happen  to  one  who 
has  become  really  man,  let  them  know  that,  making  a 
mock  of  the  suff*erings,  they  are  denying  the  nature ; 
and  denying  the  nature,  they  do  not  believe  in  the 
economy ;  and  not  believing  in  the  economy,  they 
forfeit  the  salvation.^^  Procl.  ad  Armen.  p.  2,  p.  615^ 
ed.  1630. 


VOL.  II. 


A  a 


370 


THE  ^AirapdWaiCTov, 


The  ^ AirapaXKaKTOV, 

Unvarying  or  exact,  i.e.  Image.  This  was  a  word 
used  by  the  Fathers  in  the  Nicene  Council  to  express 
the  relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father^  and  if  they  even- 
tually went  farther^  and  adopted  the  formula  of  the 
Homoiision,  this  was  only  when  they  found  that  the 
Arians  explained  its  force  away.  When  the  Bishops 
said  that  the  Word  .  .  .  was  the  Image  of  the  Father, 
like  to  Him  in  all  things  and  airapoXkaKTov,  &c.  ,  .  . 
the  party  of  Eusebius  were  caught  whispering  to  each 
other  that  ^like^  &c.  were  common  to  us  and  to  the 
Son,  and  that  it  was  no  difficulty  to  agree  to  these  .  .  . 
So  the  Bishops  were  compelled  to  concentrate  the  sense 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  say  that  the  Son  is  ^  consub- 
stantial/  or  ^  one  in  substance/  that  is,  the  same  in 
likeness  with  the  Father.''    Deer.  §  20. 

%  The  Eusebian  party  allowed  that  our  Lord  was 
like,  and  the  image  of,  the  Father,  but  in  the  sense  in 
which  a  picture  is  like  the  original,  differing  from  it  in 
substance  and  in  fact.  In  this  sense  they  even  allowed 
the  strong  word  airapaXkaicTo^y  exact  image,  which,  as 
I  have  said,  had  been  used  by  the  Catholics,  (vid. 
Alexander,  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  740,)  as  by  the 
Semi- Arians  afterwards,  who  even  added  the  words  Kar 
ovaiav,  or  according  to  substance.''  Even  this  strong 
phrase,  however,  Kar  ovaiav  dirapdWaKTo^;  ecKcov,  or 


THE  ^ AirapaXkaicTOV, 


371 


aTTapaXkaKTw^  ofjLoio^y  or  airapdWa/cro^;  TavT6T7]<;,  did 
not  appear  to  the  Council  an  adequate  safeguard  of  the 
doctrine.  Athan.  notices,  Syn.  §  53,  that  like  ap- 
plies to  qualities  rather  than  to  substance.  Also  Basil. 
Ep.  8,  n.  3.  In  itself  it  is  frequently  used  of  faint 
similitudes,  and  falling  very  far  short  of  the  original.''^ 
Ep.  9,  n.  3.  Accordingly,  the  Council  determined  on 
the  word  ofjuoovauov  as  implying,  as  Athan.  Deer.  §  20 
expresses  it,  tlce  same  in  likeness/^  ravrov  rfj  o/jLotcocrec, 
that  the  likeness  might  not  be  analogical,  vid.  Cyril, 
in  Joan.  1.  iii.  p.  302. 

T[  Athan.  says  that  in  consistency  those  who  professed 
the  aTTapdWatcTov  should  go  further  one  way  or  the 
other.  Syn.  §  38.  When  they  spoke  of  like/^  Athan. 
says^,  they  could  not  consistently  mean  anything  short 
of  likeness  of  substance/^  for  this  is  the  only  true 
likeness  ;  and  while  they  used  the  words  a7rapdWaKT0<; 
elKwv,  unvarying  image,  to  exclude  all  essential  like- 
ness, they  were  imagining  instead  an  image  varying 
utterly  from  its  original.  While  then  he  allows  it,  he  is 
far  from  satisfied  with  the  phrase  ofMoio^  Kar^  ova  Lav  or 
ojjbOLovaLo^i  ;  he  rejects  it  on  the  very  ground  that  when 
we  speak  of  "  like,^^  we  imply  qualities,  not  substance. 
Every  image  varies  from  the  original,  because  it  is  an 
image.  Yet  he  himself  frequently  uses  it,  as  do  other 
Fathers ;  vid.  Orat.  i.  §  26,  o/xoio?  tt)?  ovaia'^.  And  all 
human  terms  are  imperfect;  and  image"  itself  is 
used  in  Scripture. 

%  ^ A7rapdWaKTo<;  eiKcov  Kar  ovaiav  was  practically  the 
symbol  of  Semi-Arianism,  not  because  it  did  not  admit 
of  a  religious  explanation,  but  because  it  did  admit  of 

2  A  a 


372 


THE  ^ AirapoXKaiCTOV, 


a  wrong  one.  It  marked  the  limit  of  Semi-Arian  ap- 
proximation to  the  absolute  truth.  It  was  in  order  to 
secure  the  true  sense  of  airapaXkaicTov  that  the  Council 
adopted  the  word  oiioovaiov.  ^ AirapaKKaiCTov  is  accord- 
ingly used  as  a  familiar  word  by  Athan.  de  Deer.  supr. 
§  20,  24.  Orat.  iii.  §  36.  contr.  Gent.  41,  46  fin. 
Provided  with  a  safe  evasion  of  its  force,  the  Arians 
had  no  difficulty  in  saying  it  after  him.  Philos- 
torgius  ascribes  it  to  Asterius,  and  Acacius  quotes  a 
passage  from  his  writings  containing  it.  (vid.  Epiph. 
Haer.  72,  6,)  Acacius  at  the  same  time  forcibly 
expresses  what  is  meant  by  the  word,  to  eicrvirov  koI 
rpavh  ifc/jLayelov  rov  deov  ttj^;  ovaLa<;.  In  this  he  speaks 
as  S.  Alexander,  rrjv  Kara  irdvra  o/jbOiOTrjra  avrov  i/c 
<f)V(T€co^  aTTo/jLa^dfievo^;,  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  740. 
Xapafcrrjpy  Hebr.  i.  3,  contains  the  same  idea.  An 
image  not  inanimate,  not  framed  by  the  hand,  nor 
work  of  art  and  imagination,  [eirLvola^,)  but  a  living 
image,  yea,  the  very  life  [avroovaa)  ;  ever  preserving 
the  unvarying  (to  airapaXKaicTov) ,  not  in  likeness  of 
fashion,  but  in  its  very  substance. Basil,  contr. 
Eunom.  i.  18.  The  Auctor  de  Trinitate  says,  speaking 
of  the  word  in  the  Creed  of  the  Dedication,  Will  in 
nothing  varying  from  will  {airapdXkatCTos;)  is  the 
same  will ;  and  power  nothing  varying  from  power 
is  the  same  power;  and  glory  nothing  varying  from 
glory  is  the  same  glory.^^  The  Macedonian  replies. 
Unvarying  I  say,  the  same  I  say  not.^^  Dial.  iii. 
p.  993  (Theod.  t.  v.)  ;  Athan.  de  Deer.  1.  c.  seems 
to  say  the  same.  That  is,  in  the  Catholic  sense, 
the  image  was  not  airapdXKaKTo^;,  if  there  was  any 


THE  ^AirapdWaKTOv. 


373 


difference^  if  He  was  not  one  with  Him  of  whom  He  was 
the  image,  vid.  Hil.  de  Syn.  91.  ad  Const,  ii.  5.  And 
the  heretical  party  saw  that  it  was  impossible  to  deny 
the  ofjioovaLov  and  7r6pi'x^cop7]crt<;,  and  yet  maintain  the 
airapaXKafCTov,  without  holding  two  Gods.  Hence  the 
ultimate  resolution  of  the  Semi-Arians,  partly  into 
orthodox,  partly  into  Anomoeans. 

^  What  sort  of  faith  have  they  who  stand  neither 
to  word  nor  writing,  but  alter  and  change  everything 
according  to  the  season  ?  For  if,  0  Acacius  and 
Eudoxius,  you  do  not  decline  the  faith  published  at 
the  Dedication,  and  in  it  is  written  that  the  Son  is 
^  Exact  Image  of  God^s  substance/  why  is  it  ye  write 
in  Isauria,  We  reject  ^  the  Like  in  substance  ^  ?  for  if 
the  Son  is  not  like  the  Father  in  respect  of  substance, 
how  is  He  *  exact  image  of  the  substance  ?  ^  But  if 
you  are  dissatisfied  at  having  written  ^  Exact  Image  of 
the  substance,^  how  is  it  that  ye  anathematise  those 
who  say  that  the  Son  is  unlike  ?  for  if  He  be  not  accord- 
ing to  substance  like,  He  is  altogether  unlike  :  and  the 
Unlike  cannot  be  an  Image.  And  if  so,  then  it  does 
not  hold  that  he  that  hath  seen  the  Son,  hath  seen  the 
Father y  there  being  then  the  greatest  difference  possi- 
ble between  Them,  or  rather  the  One  being  wholly 
Unlike  the  Other.  And  Unlike  cannot  possibly  be 
called  Like.  By  what  artifice  then  do  ye  call  unlike 
like,  and  consider  Like  to  be  unlike,  and  so  pretend  to 
say  that  the  Son  is  the  Father's  Image  ?  for  if  the  Son 
be  not  like  the  Father  in  substance,  something  is 
wanting  to  the  Image/^   Syn.  §  38. 


374 


Radiance  or  sliine.  This  is  St.  Paulas  word^  Hebr. 
i.  3,  taken  from  Wisdom  vii.  26^  and  suggesting  the 
Light  from  Light  of  the  Nicene  Creed.  It  is  the 
familiar  illustration  used  by  Athan.  to  convey  the  idea 
of  the  Divine  Sonship^  as  consubstantial  and  from 
eternity.  He  sometimes  uses  the  image  of  fire^  Orat. 
iv.  §  2  and  10^  but  it  is  still  fire  and  its  radiance. 
However^  we  find  the  illustration  of  fire  from  fire, 
Justin.  Tryph.  61,  Tatian.  contr.  Graec.  5.  At  this 
early  day  the  illustration  of  radiance  might  have  a 
Sabellian  bearing,  as  that  of  fire  in  Athan.^s  had  an 
Arian.  Hence  Justin  protests  against  those  who  con- 
sidered the  Son  as  like  the  sun^s  light  in  the  heaven/^ 
which  when  it  sets,  goes  away  with  it,^^  whereas  it  is 
as  ^^fire  kindled  from  fire.^^  Tryph.  128.  Athenagoras, 
however,  like  Athanasius,  says  ^^as  Light  from  Fire,^^ 
using  also  the  word  diroppoLa,  effluence.  Vid.  also 
Orig.  Periarchon,  i.  2,  n.  4.  Tertull.  Apol.  21.  Theogn. 
ap.  Athan.  Deer.  §  25. 


^AiToppor}. 


375 


^  Airoppor], 

This  word,  though  in  itself  unobjectionable  as  an 
expression  of  the  divine  yevvT^cn^;,  is  generally  avoided 
by  the  Fathers,  as  being  interpreted  by  the  Arians  in 
a  material  sense.  The  offspring  of  men  are  portions 
of  their  fathers/^  says  Athanasius,  ^^and  men  diroppeovac 
in  begetting,  and  gain  substance  in  taking  food ;  but 
God,  being  without  parts,  is  Father  of  a  Son  without 
partition  or  passion,  for  there  is  neither  airopporj  in  the 
Immaterial  nor  eiTLppori,  and,  being  uncompounded  by 
nature.  He  is  Father  of  One  only  Son.  And  He  too  is 
the  Father^s  Word,  from  which  may  be  understood  the 
impassible  nature  of  the  Father,  in  that  not  even  a 
human  word  is  begotten  with  passion,  much  less  the 
Word  of  God.^^    Deer.  §  11. 

^  S.  Cyril,  Dial.  iv.  init.  p.  505,  speaks  of  the 
OpvXkovfJievr]  airoppor)  ;  and  disclaims  it,  Thesaur.  6, 
p.  43.  Athanasius  disclaims  it,  Expos.  §  i.  Orat.  i. 
§  21.  So  does  Alexander,  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  743. 
On  the  other  hand,  Athanasius  quotes  it  in  a  passage 
which  he  adduces  from  Theognostus,  Deer.  §  25,  and 
from  Dionysius,  de  Sent.  D.  §  22,  and  Origen  uses  it, 
Periarchon,  i.  2.  It  is  derived  from  Wisd.  vii.  25. 
The  passage  of  Theognostus  is  as  follows  : — 
^  The  substance  of  the  Son  is  not  anything  gained 
from  without,  nor  provided  out  of  nothing,  but  it 


376 


^Airopporj, 


sprang  from  tlie  Father^s  substance,  as  the  radiance 
of  light,  as  the  vapour  of  water;  for  neither  the 
radiance,  nor  the  vapour,  is  the  water  itself  or  the  sun 
itself,  nor  is  it  alien;  but  it  is  an  effluence  of  the 
Father^s  substance,  which,  however,  suiBFers  no  parti- 
tion. For  as  the  sun  remains  the  same,  and  is  not 
impaired  by  the  rays  poured  forth  by  it,  so  neither 
does  the  Father^s  substance  sufier  change,  though  it 
has  the  Son  as  an  Image  of  Itself/^   Deer.  §  25. 

Vapour  is  also  used  in  Wisdom  vii.,  Origen,  &c., 
as  referred  to  supr. 

^  Hieracas  the  Manichaoan  compared  the  Two  Divine 
Persons  to  the  two  lights  of  one  lamp,  where  the  oil 
is  common  and  the  flame  double,  thus  implying  a  sub- 
stance distinct  from  Father  and  Son  of  which  each 
partook,  or  to  a  flame  divided  into  two  by  (for  in- 
stance) the  papyrus  which  was  commonly  used  instead 
of  a  wick.  vid.  Hilar,  de  Trin.  vi.  12. 


'ApeLOfjLavLTac. 


377 


^ApeLo/jLavlratj 

A  TITLE  of  tlie  Arians.  ^^The  damb  ass  forbade  tlie 
madness  of  the  prophet/^  irapaj>povLav.  On  the  word 
^Ap€Lo/jbavLTaLy  Gibbon  observes^  The  ordinary  appel- 
lation with  which  Athanasius  and  his  followers  chose 
to  compliment  the  Arians^  was  that  of  Ariomanites/^ 
eh.  xxi.  note  61.  Rather^  the  name  originally  was  a  state 
title,  enjoined  by  Constantino^  vid.  Petav.  de  Trin.  i.  8 
fin.  Naz.  Orat.  43.  30,  p.  794,  note  e,,  and  thenceforth 
used  by  the  general  Church,  e.g.  Eustathins  of  Antioch, 
ap.  Theod.  Hist  i.  7.  Constant,  ap.  Concil.  t.  i.  p.  456. 
Hilar,  de.  Trin.  vii.  n.  7,  note.  Julius  ap.  Athan.  ApoL  c. 
Ar.  23.  Council  of  Egypt,  ibid.  77,  vid.  also  6.  Phoe- 
badius  contr.  Arian.  22.  Epiph.  Haer.  69, 19.  (6  /jiavc(oSr]<; 
"ApeLo<;.)  Greg.  Naz.  Orat.  2.  37,  rqv  ^Apeiov  icaXo)^ 
ovofiaaOelaav  jiaviav,  and  so  6  t^9  ^avia^  iTrcovv/juo^y 
Orat.  43.  30,  vid.  also  Orat.  20.  5 ;  and  so  Proclus, 
Tr]v  ^Apeiov  ixaviav,  ad  Armen.  p.  618  fin.  And  Athan. 
e.g.  fxavlav  Sca^oXov,  ad  Serap.  i.  1  ;  also  ad  Scrap,  i. 
17  fin.  19  init.  20,  24,  29.  ii.  1  fin.  iv.  5  init.  6  fin.  15 
fin.  16  fin.  In  some  of  these  the  denial  of  the  divinity 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  madness.  In  like  manner 
Hilary  speaks  continually  of  their  ^'furor,^^  de  Trin. 
i.  17. 

%  Several  meanings  are  implied  in  this  title ;  the 
real  reason  for  it  was  the  fanatical  fury  with  which  it 


378 


^ApeiOfJiavLTai. 


spread  and  maintained  itself;  (cf.  on  the  otlier 
hand^  6  fjiavL/co<;  €pa(TTr]<;  rod  'X^ptcrTOv,  enthusiastic. 
Chrysost.  in  Esai.  vi.  1.  Horn.  iv.  3,  t.  6,  p.  124.)  Thus 
Athan.  contrasts  the  Arian  hatred  of  the  truth  with 
the  mere  worldliness  of  the  Meletians,  Ep.  ^g.  22. 
Hence  they  are  aae^eh,  ')(^pLaToiid')(oij  and  governed  by 
KaKovoia  and  fca/co^poavvT]. 

Again^  Socrates  speaks  of  it  as  a  flame  which 
ravaged^  eireveiiero ,  provinces  and  cities,  i.  6.  And 
Alexander  cries  out^  w  avocriov  rvcf^ov  koX  afjuirpov 
fjLavLa^.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  741.  vid.  also  pp. 
735,  6.  747.  And  we  read  much  of  their  eager 
spirit  of  proselytism.  Theod.  ibid.  The  word  mania 
may  be  taken  to  express  one  aspect  of  it  in  English. 
Their  cruelty  came  into  this  idea  of  their  mania 
hence  Athan.  in  one  place  calls  the  Arian  women,  in 
the  tumult  under  George  of  Cappadocia,  Mcenades, 

They,  running  up  and  down  like  Bacchantes  and 
furies,  jjuaivdhe^;  fcal  epivvve^,  thought  it  a  misfortune 
not  to  find  opportunity  for  injur}^,  and  passed  that  day 
in  grief  in  which  they  could  do  no  harm.^^  Hist.  Arian. 
59.  Also,  profana  Arianorum  novitas  velut  qusedam 
Bellona  aut  Furia.^^  Vincent.  Common.  4.  Eustathius 
speaks  of  ol  irapdSo^ot  rrj^;  apelov  6vfjL€\r](;  fi6cr6')(^opoL. 
ap.  Phot.  225,  p.  759.  And  hence  the  strange  parono- 
masia of  Constantino,  ^Ap€<;,  apete,  with  an  allusion  to 
Horn.  n.  V.  31. 

^  A  second  reason,  or  rather  sense,  of  the  ap- 
pellation was  what  is  noted  supr.  art.  aXoyla^  that, 
denying  the  Word,  they  have  forfeited  the  gift  of 
reason,  e.g.  tcov  ^ ApeuoixavLjcov  rrjv  aXoyiav,  de  Sent. 


^  Apeioixavlrai. 


379 


Dion.  init.  vid.  ibid.  24  fin.  Orat.  ii.  §  32.  iii. 
§  63  throughout.  Hence  in  like  manner  Athan. 
speaks  of  the  heathen  as  mad  who  did  not  acknow- 
ledge God  and  His  Word,  contr.  Gent,  fin.^  also  23 
fin.  Hence  he  speaks  of  elScoXofjuavLa.  contr.  Gent.  10^ 
and  21  fin.  Again^  In  earn.  4<7,  he  speaks  of  the 
mania  of  oracles,  which  belongs  rather  to  the  former 
sense  of  the  word. 

^  Other  heresies  had  the  word  mania  applied 
to  them,  e.g.  that  of  Valentinus,  Athan.  Orat.  ii.  §  70, 
Kap  iiaivrjrai,  Epiphanius  speaks  of  the  ifjufiavrj^^ 
ocSao-KaXLa  of  the  Noetians.  Hser.  57,  2.  Nazian- 
zen  contrasts  the  sickness,  vocro^,  of  Sabellius  with 
the  madness  of  Arius,  Orat.  20.  5  ;  but  Athan. 
says,  fjuaiverai  fjuev  "Apeio^,  fJuaLverai  Se  Sa/SeWio^;,  Orat. 
iv.  25.  Manes  also  was  called  mad  :  Thou  must 
hate  all  heretics,  but  especially  him  who  even  in  name 
is  a  maniac. Cyril.  Catech.  vi.  20.  vid.  also  ibid.  24 
fin. — a  play  upon  the  name.  But  this  note  might  be 
prolonged  indefinitely. 


380 


First  principle  or  the  beginning.  This  is  a  term  employed 
both  in  expounding  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
and  in  that  of  the  Incarnation.  For  its  employment  in 
the  former  of  these,  vid.  supr.  art.  Father  Almighty.  As 
to  the  second^  it  expresses  the  great  providential  office  of 
the  Second  Person  towards  the  universe,  spiritual  and 
material,  which  He  has  created.  The  creature,  as  such, 
is  insufficient  for  itself ;  and  He,  who  gave  it  being,  gives 
it  also  a  grace  above  its  nature  to  enable  it  to  use  and 
enjoy  that  being  well  and  happily.  Nor  is  it  a  mere 
gift  of  power  or  health,  as  a  quality^  but  it  is  the  very 
Presence  of  the  Word,  the  Second  Person  of  the 
Blessed  Trinity,  in  the  creature,  of  which  Presence  a 
certain  perfection  of  being  and  a  continuous  life  is 
the  result.  A  still  more  wonderful  dispensation  or 
Economy  is  revealed  to  us  pre-eminently  in  the  Gospel, 
vid.  Deification,  Grace,  Sanctification,  Indwelling,  &c. ; 
but  such  a  gift  above  nature  has  been  and  is  exercised 
in  the  first  instance  towards  the  material  and  Angelic 
world,  and  the  title  given  to  the  Word  in  exercising 
this  high  Providential  office  is  that  of  ap^V*  Vid.  also 
arts,  dfcparo^,  a-v^Kard^aa-L^,  TrpcororoKo^;. 

This  office  of  the  Word,  it  is  plain,  commences  from 
the  first  moment  of  creation,  and  in  its  very  nature 
implies  divinity.    It  is  spoken  of  in  Scripture,  viz.  in 


381 


the  Proverbs^ — Dominus  possedit  Me  in  initio  viarum 
suarum  ;  a  passage  to  which,  the  Arians  appealed  in 
the  controversy  more  than  to  any  other  place  in 
Scripture.  It  is  in  refutation  of  their  arguments  that 
Athan.  introduces  his  own  grand  dissertation  upon  the 
sense  of  ap')(ri.  The  Arians  interpreted  it  as  meaning 
that  the  Personal  Word  and  Son  of  God  was  the  work 
with  which  creation  commenced,  that  is.  He  was  the 
first  creature.  Athan.  lays  it  down  that  He  was  not  the 
beginning  in  the  sense  of  being  the  first  of  the  whole 
number  of  creatures,  but  as  heading  the  creation  of 
God.  He  could  not  have  been  the  first  of  all,  if  He 
had  been  one  of  all.  As  being  an  efficax  initium,  or  an 
initium  that  initiates,  He  is  more  than  a  beginning; 
He  is  a  cause  :  He  could  not  initiate,  unless  He  were 
divine.  He  entered  creation  by  an  act  of  condescension, 
in  order  to  associate  it  with  His  own  greatness.  Vid. 
Orat.  ii,  §  49.  And  ibid.  §  60,  He  who  is  before 
all  is  not  a  beginning  of  all,  but  is  other  than  all.'^^ 
Yet  again^  He  is  a  beginning,  because  He  begins  the 
beginning. 

In  this  there  is  an  analogy  to  the  circumstances  of 
His  Incarnation.  His  inhabiting  and  vivifying  the 
creation  implies  attributes  of  the  Supreme  Being  : 
He  could  not  be  by  office  7rpcoT6TOKo<;  (first-born) 
without  first  being  /juovoyev^^  (only-begotten)  ;  and 
in  like  manner  in  the  Gospel  He  is  able  to  stoop  to 
be  our  Mediator,  and  to  bo  a  Priest  making  atone- 
ment for  us,  and  to  be  our  Brother  gaining  blessings 
for  us,  because,  though  man.  He  is  more  than  mere 
man.  vid.  Friestliood,    Such  is  the  force,  as  Athan.  says, 


382 


of  the  wherefore  in  Ps.  xliv. ;  because  He  is  by 
nature  God,  therefore  He  was  able  to  be  exalted  as 
Mediator. 

In  consequence  of  this  close  analogy  between  the 
circumstances  of  Creation  and  Redemption,  our  Lord 
is  called  apxh  by  Athan.  in  both  dispensations.  There 
is  an  initial  grace  necessary  for  the  redeemed,  if  they 
are  to  partake  of  the  redemption,  as  well  as  for  their 
having  their  place  in  creation.  Vid.  the  passages 
quoted  under  Spiritual  Freedom. 


THE  "ArpeTTTo^;. 


383 


The  " ArpeiTTo^y 

That  is^  of  a  nature  capable  of  change  in  ethical 
character.  Arius  maintained  this  of  our  Lord  in  the 
strongest  terms  in  the  earlier  statements  of  his 
heresy.  On  being  asked  (says  Alexander)  whether 
the  Word  of  God  is  capable  of  altering,  as  the  devil 
altered,  they  scrupled  not  to  say,  ^Yes,  He  is 
capable/  Socr.  i.  6.  vid.  the  anathema  at  Sirmium 
on  those  who  said  tov  Xoyov  rpoirrjv  virofjieiJbevrjicoTa. 
supr.  vol.  i.  p.  Ill,  note  4. 

It  was  indeed  difficult,  with  their  opinions,  to  exclude 
the  notion  that  change  of  some  kind  belonged  to  Him  ; 
nay,  that  He  was  not  only  in  nature  rpeTrro?,  but  in 
fact  aXKoioviievo<;,  (vid.  Deer.  §  23.  Orat.  ii.  §  6.)  It 
would  be  strange  if  they  stopped  short  of  this,  as  soon 
as  they  came  to  hold  that  our  Lord^s  superhuman 
nature  took  the  place  of  a  soul,  and  was  dependent  on 
the  body ;  and  they  scarcely  would  encumber  them- 
selves with  the  mystery  of  a  double  rjyefjbovcKov,  when 
they  had  thrown  aside  the  mysterium  pietatis.^^ 
This  they  seem  to  have  done  even  in  S.  Athanasius's 
lifetime  ;  for  he  speaks  of  them  in  contr.  Apoll.  i.  15,  as 
supposing  that  the  Saviour  took  flesh  only,  and  thus 
imputing  suffering  to  the  impassible  Godhead.  Vid. 
also  Ambros.  de  Fid.  iii.  n.  38.  Also  an  assumption  of 
this  tenet  seems  involved  (vid.  Macrostich  6)  in  the 


384 


ground  assigned  for  condemning  the  Sabellians.  vid. 
supr.  vol.  i^  p.  106. 

This  tenet  was  the  connecting  point  between  Arians 
and  Apollinarians.  Both  held  that  our  Lord  was  a  sort 
of  man  made  up  of  a  divine  being  and  what  resembles 
a  creature,  and  what  Athan.  and  other  Fathers  say 
against  the  Apollinarians  serves  against  the  Arians 
also.  "JrpeTTTo?  fxevcov,  &c.^  he  says^  Orat.  ii.  §  6, 
against  the  Arians^  and  so  against  ApolUnaris  he  says, 
o  X6709  dv6pco7ro<;  yeyove,  /jbevcov  ^eo?.  ii.  7.  vid.  also  ibid. 
3  circ.  init.  So  0  /Jbkv  rjVy  Siefieivev*  o  ov/c  rjv, 
TrpocriXa/Sev,  Naz.  Orat.  29.  19.  ova  la  fievovcra  oirep 
icrrL  Chrysost.  ap.  Theodor.  Eran.  p.  47.  o  rjv  e/ieive  81 
eavTOV,  KoX  0  rjOeXrjfre  jeyove  hi  ^^/xa?.  Procl.  ad  Arm. 
Ep.  ii.  p.  615,  ed.  1630.  vid.  also  Maxim.  0pp.  t.  2,  ed. 
1675.  oirep  rjv  Bcafiivcov,  koX  yev6^evo<^  oirep  ovk  rjv,  p. 
286.  vid.  also  p.  264.  Manens  id  quod  erat,  factus 
quod  non  erat."^^  August,  cons.  Ev.  i.  n.  53  fin. 
^^Non  omiserat  quod  erat,  sed  coeperat  esse  quod 
non  erat.'''  Hilar.  Trin.  iii.  16.  Non  amittendo 
quod  suum  erat,  sed  suscipiendo  quod  nostrum  erat."'^ 
Vigil,  contr.  Eut.  i.  13,  p.  498,  (Bibl.  P.  ed.  1624,) 
and  so  Leo. 


BovXr],  /cara  ^ovXtjctcv, 


385 


BovXrj,  Kara  ffovXrjcrtv* 

One  of  the  arguments^  on  which  the  Arians  laid  most 
stress  in  controversy^  was  the  received  doctrine^  as  it 
may  be  considered^  that  our  Lord^s  gennesis  was  Kara 
TO  ,8ovX7jfjLa  of  the  Father.  Athanasius  says  that  the 
doctrine  is  not  only  heretical  in  its  application,  but  in 
its  source,  though  still  not  necessarily  heretical,  viewed 
in  itself.  The  phrase/^  he  says,  is  from  the  here- 
tics, and  the  words  of  heretics  are  suspicious/^  Orat. 
iii.  §  59,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  192 ;  and  in  corroboration  he 
might  allege  various  heterodox  writers.  E.g.  of  these, 
Tatian  had  said  OeXrujuaru  TrpoirrjSa  6  X0709.  Gent.  5. 
Tertullian  had  said,  "  Ut  primum  voluit  Deus  ea  edere, 
ipsum  primum  protulit  Sermonem.^^  adv.  Prax.  6. 
Novatian,  Ex  quo,  quando  ipse  voluit,  Sermo  filius 
natus  est/^  de  Trin.  31.  And  Constit.  Apost.  top  irpo 
alcovcov  evhoKia  rod  iraTpo<s  yevvrjOevra.  vii.  41.  Also 
Pseudo-Clem.  Genuit  Deus  voluntate  prsecedente.^^ 
Recognit.  iii.  10.  And  Eusebius,  Kara  yvco/xrjv  koX 
irpoalpeaiv  /SovXrjdeU  6  ^eo?  and  iK  t?)?  tov  irarpo^ 
^ovXrj<^  Koi  8vvd/jL6co^*  Dem.  iv.  3.  Arius,  of  course, 
deXrj/jiaTL  /cal  /BovXrj  virearr],  ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  4,  p. 
750,  and  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  84,  Arius's  Creed. 

This  is  true,  but  far  higher  authorities  can  be  cited  in 
favour  of  the  phrase,  so  that  Athan.  feels  it  necessary  to 
guard  and  soften  his  adverse  judgment  upon  it.  Hence 
he  says,  ^^If  any  orthodox  believer  were  to  use  these 

VOL.  II.  B  b 


386 


BovXrj,  Kara  ^ovXrjacv. 


words  in  simplicity,  there  would  be  no  cause  to  be 
suspicious  of  them,  the  orthodox  intention  prevailing 
over  that  somewhat  simple  use  of  words/^  Orat.  iii. 
§  59  (as  supra).  And,  Had  these  expositions  of  theirs 
proceeded  from  the  great  confessor  Hosius,  Maximinus, 
Philogonius,  Bustathius,  Julius/^  &c.  &c.  Ep.  -^g.  8. 
But,  after  all,  his  admissions  in  favour  of  the  phrase  do 
not  go  far  enough,  as  the  following  specimens  of  the 
use  of  it  will  show  :  — 

S.  Ignatius  speaks  of  our  Lord  as  Son  of  God 
according  to  the  will  {deXrj/jia)  and  power  of  God/^  ad 
Smyrn.  1.  S.  Justin  as  God  and  Son  according  to 
His  will,  ^ovXijv/'  Tryph.  127;  and  "begotten  from 
the  Father  at  His  will,  Oekrjaei/^  ibid.  61 ;  and  he  says, 
SvvdfJieL  Kol  /SovXy  avrov,  ibid.  128.  S.  Clement, 
"issuing  from  the  Father's  will  itself  quicker  than 
light.''  Gent.  10  fin.  S.  Hippolytus,  "Whom  God  the 
Father,  having  willed,  ^ovXrjBeU,  begat  as  He  willed,  co? 
r/deXTjaev*^'  contr.  Noet.  16.  Origen,  e/c  OeX'^fJuaro^.  ap. 
Justin  ad  Menu,  (in  Concil.  Const,  ii.  p.  274,  Hard.) 
vid.  also  "  cum  filius  charitatis  etiam  voluntatis.'' 
Periarch.  iv.  28. 

But  what  is  more  to  the  purpose  still,  Athan.  uses 
the  phrase  himself,  and  thereby  necessarily  sanctions  the 
doctrine  which  it  represents,  in  one  passage  in  his  Dis- 
courses, viz.  in  Orat.  iii.  §  31.  "  Our  Lord  was  ever 
God,"  he  says,  and  hallowed  those  to  whom  He  came, 
arranging  all  things  fcara  to  ^ovXTjfia  rod  'jrarpo^*^'  And 
similarly  he  says,  "  Men  came  into  being  through  the 
Word,  ore  avro^  6  irarrjp  rjOeXrjo-e*^^   Orat.  i.  §  63. 

^  Now  let  us  consider  what  the  argument  was  which 


BovXr),  Kara  /SovXtjo-lv. 


387 


the  Arians  founded  on  this  phrase^  and  how  it  was  to 
be  refuted. 

They  threw  it  into  the  form  of  a  dilemma  thus  : 

Was  our  Lord^s  gennesis  with  or  without  the 
Father^s  will  ?  If  with^  then  He  who  willed  the  Son^s 
existence^  could  have  not  willed  it,  or  could  unwill  it 
now;  if  without,  then  it  is  the  blind  action  of  some 
unknown  cause  or  fate,  not  the  act  of  the  Living 
Almighty  God/^  If  the  first  of  these  alternatives 
was  accepted,  then  followed  two  conclusions,  both 
contradictory  of  our  Lord^s  divinity.  God  is  self- 
existent  ;  but  a  son  depends  on  his  father^s  will : — 
God  is  eternal ;  but  a  son  is  posterior  to  his  father^s 
will.  For  both  reasons  the  Son  is  not  God.^^  If  the 
second  alternative  is  taken,  then  Necessity  is  sovereign, 
and  God  ceases  to  be. 

This  reasoning,  which  in  the  first  instance  they 
applied  to  our  Lord^s  gennesis^  they  proceeded  to 
apply  to  all  His  divine  acts  also.  As  He  was  a  being 
depending  for  His  being,  life,  and  powers  on  the  will  of 
the  Supreme  God,  His  Maker,  so  His  great  works  in 
creation,  conservation,  and  moral  governance,  in  re- 
demption and  sanctification,  were  all  done  in  obedience 
to  definite  commands  and  fiats  of  His  Almighty  Father. 

Such  was  the  Arian  argument,  yet  it  was  not  very 
difficult  to  expose  its  fallacy,  while  admitting  the  fcara 
TO  /3ov\7]/jLa  to  be  orthodox ;  and  one  can  only  suppose 
that  Athan.  in  fact  found  Catholics  perplexed  and 
disturbed  by  the  use  the  Arians  made  of  it,  and  felt 
tender  towards  those  who  were  not  clear-headed.  It  was 
scarcely  more  than  another  form  of  the  original  objec- 

B  b  2 


388 


BovXr],  Kara  /3ov\7]aiv, 


tion  that  a  son  must  be  posterior  to  Ms  father^  as  if 
the  conditions  of  time  existed  in  eternity.  Sooner 
and  ^4ater^'  imply  succession,  and  vanish  when  time  is 
no  longer.  It  is  customary  to  lay  down  that  with  Omnipo- 
tence to  say  is  to  do  :  He  spake  and  it  was  done  ;  and 
if  in  creation,  which  is  a  work  in  time,  to  determine  and 
to  effect  is  one  act,  how  much  more  really  is  succession 
as  regards  His  own  nature  foreign  to  the  Ancient  of 
days,  who  is  at  once  the  Alpha  and  Omega,  the  Begin- 
ning and  the  End  !  Then  as  to  the  alternative  of  the 
Divine  acts  being  subject  to  necessity  or  fate,  it  is 
obvious  to  ask  whether  the  Supreme  Being  is  not  good 
and  just,  omnipotent,  and  all-blessed,  Kara  to  l3ov\7]iJLa, 
yet  could  He  change  His  nature  ?  could  He  make 
virtue  vice,  and  vice  virtue  ?  If  He  cannot  destroy 
Himself,  and  would  not  be  God  if  He  could  or  would, 
why  should  He  cease  to  be  God,  if  He  cannot  be,  nor  can 
will  to  be,  without  a  Son  ?  Such  thoughts  are  as  pro- 
fane as  they  are  unmeaning ;  and  in  the  presence  of 
them,  Athanasius  begs  God  to  pardon  him,  if  his  Arian 
opponents  force  him  to  entertain  them. 

The  gennesisj  he  says,  belongs  to  the  Divine  Nature, 
as  the  Divine  Attributes  do,  and,  as  we  cannot  explain 
why  and  how  the  moral  law  is  what  it  is,  so  neither 
can  we  understand  how  Father  and  Son  are  what  They 
are.  They  say,^^  he  observes,  ^  Unless  the  Son  has 
by  the  Father's  will  come  into  being,  it  follows  that 
the  Father  had  a  Son  of  necessity  and  against  His 
good  pleasure.^  Who  is  it  who  imposes  necessity  on 
Him  ?  .  .  .  What  is  contrary  to  will  they  see ;  but  what  is 
greater  and  transcends  it,  has  escaped  their  perception. 


Bov\r],  Kara  /3ov\rj(Tti^* 


389 


For^  as  what  is  besides  purpose  is  contrary  to  will^  so 
what  is  according  to  nature  transcends  and  precedes 
counselling.  .  .  .  The  Son  is  not  external  to  the  Father, 
wherefore  neither  does  [the  Father]  counsel  concerning 
Hinij  lest  He  appear  to  counsel  about  Himself.  As  far 
then  as  the  Son  transcends  the  creature,  by  so  much 
does  what  is  by  nature  in  God  transcend  the  will.  .  .  . 
For  let  them  tell  us,  that  God  is  good  and  merciful, 
does  this  attach  to  Him  by  will  or  not  ?  if  by  will,  we 
must  consider  that  He  began  to  be  good,  and  that  His 
not  being  good  is  possible.  .  .  .  Moreover,  the  Father 
Himself,  does  He  exist,  first  having  counselled,  then 
being  pleased,  to  exist,  or  before  counselling  ?  Orat. 
iii.  §  62,  63,  supr.  vol.  i.  p.  197. 

^  Thus  he  makes  the  question  a  nugatory  one,  as  if 
it  did  not  go  to  the  point,  and  could  not  be  answered, 
or  might  be  answered  either  way,  as  the  case  might  be. 
Really  Nature  and  Will  go  together  in  the  Divine 
Being,  but  in  order,  as  we  regard  Him,  Nature  is  first. 
Will  second,  and  the  generation  belongs  to  Nature, 
not  to  Will.  He  says,  Whereas  they  deny  what  is 
by  nature,  do  they  not  blush  to  place  before  it  what  is 
by  will  ?  If  they  attribute  to  God  the  willing  about 
things  which  are  not,  why  recognise  they  not  what  in 
God  lies  above  the  will  ?  Now  it  is  a  something  that 
surpasses  will  that  He  should  exist  by  nature,  and 
should  be  Father  of  His  proper  Word.'^  Orat.  ii.  §  2. 
In  like  manner  S.  Epiphanius  :  He  begat  Him  neither 
willing,  OeXcoPj  nor  not  willing,  but  in  nature,  which  is 
above  will,  ^ovXrjv.  For  He  has  the  nature  of  the 
Godhead,  neither  needing  will,  nor  acting  without 


390 


BovXrj,  Kara  /3ovXrjaLV, 


will/^  Haer.  69,  26.  vid.  also  Ancor.  51,  and  Ambros. 
de  Fid.  iv.  4.  Vid.  others,  as  collected  in  Petav. 
Trin.  vi.  8,  §  14—16. 

It  would  seem  then  that  the  phrase  by  the 
Father's  will/^  is  only  objectionable,  as  giving  rise 
to  interpretations  erroneous  and  dangerous,  vid.  Deer. 
§18.  Hence  Athan.  says,  It  is  all  one  to  say  ^  at 
will/  and  ^  once  He  was  not.^  Orat.  iii.  §  61.  But 
as  this  needed  not  be  the  interpretation  of  the  phrase, 
and  it  is  well  to  keep  to  what  has  been  received,  there- 
fore as  the  earlier  Fathers  had  used  it,  so  did  those 
who  came  after  Arius.  Thus  Nyssen  in  the  passage 
in  contr.  Eun.  vii.  referred  to  lower  down.  And  S. 
Hilary,  Nativitatis  perfecta  natura  est,  ut  qui  ex  sub- 
stantia Dei  natus  est,  etiam  ex  consilio  ejus  et  volun- 
tate  nascatur.^^  Hilar.  Syn.  37.  The  same  Father  says, 
charitate  Patris  et  virtute,^^  in  Psalm,  xci.  8,  and  ^^ut 
voluit  qui  potuit,  ut  scit  qui  genuit.^^  Trin.  iii.  4.  And 
he  addresses  Him  as  non  invidum  bonorum  tuorum  in 
Unigeniti  tui  nativitate.^^  ibid.  vi.  21.  S.  Basil  too 
speaks  of  our  Lord  as  avro^corjv  koI  avrod^aOov,  ^^from 
the  quickening  Fountain,  the  Father's  goodness, 
a^aQoT7]To^P  contr.  Eun.  ii.  25.  And  Cassarius  calls 
the  Son  cu^airriv  irarpo^;*  Quaest.  39.  Vid.  Ephrem.  Syr. 
adv.  Scrut.  R.  vi.  1,  Oxf.  Trans,  and  note  there.  Maxi- 
mus  Taurin.  says,  that  God  is  per  omnipotentiam 
Pater.^^  Hom.  de  Trad.  Symb.  p.  270,  ed.  1784.  vid.  also 
Chrysol.  Serm.  61.  Ambros.  de  Fid.  iv.  8.  Petavius 
in  addition  refers  to  such  passages  as  one  just  quoted 
from  S.  Hilary,  speaking  of  God  as  not  invidus,^^  so  as 
not  to  communicate  Himself,  since  He  was  able.  Si 


BovXr]^  Kara  ^ov\r}aiv» 


391 


non  potuit^  infirmus ;  si  noluit,  invidus/^  August,  contr. 
Maxim,  ii.  7. 

Hence^  in  order  to  secure  the  phrase  from  an 
heretical  tendency,  the  Fathers  adopted  two  safeguards, 
both  of  which  are  recognised  by  Athanasius.  (1)  As 
regards  the  relation  between  the  fSovXrjfjba  and  the 
y€vvrjo-t<;,  they  made  a  distinction  between  the  ^ovXrj 
7rpo7jyovfjL€vrj  and  the  (7vi^SpofjLo<;,  the  precedent  and  the 
concomitant  will ;  and  (2)  as  to  the  relation  between 
the  ^ovXTjaa  and  creation  &c.,  they  took  care  that  the 
Son  Himself  should  be  called  the  /3ov\rj  or  /BovXrjiJia  of 
the  Father,    vid.  supr.  Mediation,  p.  220. 

^  (I)  As  to  the  precedent  will,  which  Athan.  notices, 
Orat.iii.  §60,  supr.vol.  i.  p.  192  &c.,  it  has  been  mentioned 
in  Recogn.  Clem.  supr.  p.  385.  For  Ptolemy  vid.  Epiph. 
Haer.  p.  215.  Those  Catholics  who  allowed  that  our  Lord 
was  deXrjaeL,  explained  it  as  a  avvhpofio^  OeX-TjaL^;,  and  not 
a  TrpoTjyov/jiiprj ;  as  Cyril.  Trin.  ii.  p.  450.  And  with  the 
same  meaning  S.  Ambrose,  nec  voluntas  ante  Filium 
nec  potestas.^^  de  Fid.  v.  n.  224.  And  S.  Gregory 
Nyssen,  His  immediate  union,  d/jL€(To<;  avvd^eia,  does 
not  exclude  the  Father's  will,  ^ovXyaLVj  nor  does  that 
will  separate  the  Son  from  the  Father.''  contr.  Eunom. 
vii.  p.  206,  7.  vid.  the  whole  passage.  The  alternative 
which  these  words,  avpSpofjLo<;  and  TrpoTjyov/jbevT],  ex- 
pressed was  this  :  whether  an  act  of  Divine  Purpose 
or  Will  took  place  before  the  gennesis  of  the  Son,  or 
whether  both  the  Will  and  the  gennesis  were  eternal, 
as  the  Divine  Nature  was  eternal.  Hence  Bull  says, 
with  the  view  of  exculpating  Novatian,  Cum  Filius 
dicitur  ex  Patre,  quando  ipse  voluit,  nasci,  velle  illud 


392 


BovXrj,  Kara  I3ov\7](tlv, 


Patris  aBternum  faisse  intelligendum/^  Defens.  F.  N. 
iii.  8,  §  8,  though  Novatian^s  word  quando  is  against 
this  interpretation. 

^  Two  distinct  meanings  may  be  attached  to  ^^hj 
will/^  (as  Drc  Clarke  observes^  Script.  Doct.  vol.  iv. 
p.  142^  ed.  1738^)  either  a  concurrence  or  acquiescence^ 
or  a  positive  act.  S.  Cyril  uses  it  in  the  former  sense, 
when  he  calls  it  avpSpofjbo^;,  as  referred  to  above ; 
in  the  latter,  when  he  says  that  ^Hhe  Father  wills 
His  own  subsistence,  deXrjr^^  ecm,  but  is  not  what 
He  is  from  any  will,  etc  ^ov\rj(T6(o^  rtvo';/'  Thes.  p.  56  ; 
Dr.  Clarke  would  apply  to  the  gennesis  the  e/c  ^ov\r}aem, 
with  a  view  of  inferring  that  the  Son  was  subsequent  to 
a  Divine  act,  i.e.  not  eternal ;  but  what  Athan.  says 
leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  it  does  not  matter  which 
sense  is  taken.  He  does  not  meet  the  Arian  objection, 
^^if  not  by  will  therefore  by  necessity,^^  by  speaking 
of  a  concomitant  will,  or  by  merely  saying  that  the 
Almighty  exists  or  is  good,  by  will,  with  S.  Cyril,  but 
he  says  that  nature  transcends  will  and  necessity 
also.^'  Accordingly,  Petavius  is  even  willing  to  allow 
that  the  e/c  /3ov\')]<;  is  to  be  ascribed  to  the  yevvrjai^  in 
the  sense  which  Dr.  Clarke  wishes,  i.e.  he  grants  that 
it  may  precede  the  ^evv7]cn<^,  i.e.  in  order,  not  in  time, 
viz.  the  succession  of  our  ideas,  Trin.  vi.  8,  §  20,  21  ; 
and  follows  S.  Austin,  Trin.  xv.  20,  in  preferring  to 
speak  of  our  Lord  rather  as  ^Woluntas  de  voluntate,^' 
than,  as  Athan.  is  led  to  do,  as  the     voluntas  Dei.^^ 

,  1[  (2)  As  to  our  Lord  being  the  Father^s  /3ov\r],  and 
thereby  the  concomitant  ^ovXrjfjia,  Athan.  declares  it, 
Orat.  ii.  §  31.  iii.  §  63.    Thus  in  the  first  of  these 


BovXrj,  Kara  /3ov\7]aLV. 


393 


places^  Since  the  Word  is  the  Son  of  God  by  nature, 
and  is  from  Him  and  in  Hira^  so  the  Father  without 
Him  works  nothing.  God  said,  Let  there  he  light.  .  .  He 
spoke  and  it  ivas  done,  .  .  .  He  spoke,  not  that  some  un- 
der-worker  might  hear  and  learn  His  will  who  spoke,  and 
go  away  and  do  it,  for  the  AVord  is  the  Father^ s  Will/^ 

IF  ^wcra  /3ov\7],  supr.  Orat.  ii.  2.  Cyril,  in  Joan, 
p.  213.  ^(joaa  Svva/j,t<;,  Sabell.  Greg.  5.  ^coaa  elKwv, 
Naz.  Orat.  30.  20.  ^cScra  evep^yeia,  Syn.  Antioch.  ap. 
Routh,  Reliqu.  t.  2,  p.  469.  fcScra  icrx^'^i  Cyril,  in  Joan, 
p.  951.  fft5c7a  ao(\>la,  Origen.  contr.  Cels.  iii.  fin.  few?' 
\6yo(;y  Origen.  ibid. 

^  ayaOov  Trarpo^  ajaOop  jSovXrj/jia.  Clem.  Psed.  iii. 
p.  309.  o-ocf>La,  ')(^p7](7t6t7]<^,  hvvajjii^,  OiXrj/iia  iravTOKparo- 
pLKoV'  Strom,  v.  p.  546.  Voluntas  et  potestas  patris.^^ 
TertuU.  Orat.  4.  Natus  ex  Patre  velut  qu^edam  volun- 
tas ejus  ex  mente  procedens.''^  Origen.  Periarch.  i,  2, 
§6.  S.  Jerome  notices  the  same  interpretation  of  by  the 
will  of  God/^  in  the  beginning  of  Comment,  in  Ephes. 
S.  Austin  on  the  other  hand,  as  just  now  referred  to, 
says,  Some  divines,  to  avoid  saying  that  the  Only- 
begotten  Word  is  the  Son  of  the  counsel  or  will  of 
God,  have  named  Him  the  very  Counsel  or  Will  of  the 
Father.  But  I  think  it  better  to  speak  of  Him  as 
Counsel  from  Counsel,  Will  from  Will,  as  Substance 
from  Substance,  Wisdom  from  Wisdom.^^  Trin.  xv.  20. 
And  so  Caesarius,  aydirr}  djaTrrj^.  Qu.  39,  supr.  vid. 
for  other  instances  Tertullian^s  Works,  Oxf.  Tr.  Note  I. 

^  And  so  Cyril.  Thes,  p.  54,  who  uses  it  expressly, 
(as  has  been  said  above,  p.  220,)  in  contrast  to  the 
Kara  ^ovXrjaLv  of  the  Arians,  though  Athan.  uses  Kara 


394 


BovXrj,  Kara  BovXrjaiV. 


TO  ^ovXrjixa,  also  (as  in  Orat.  iii.  31) : — avro^  rov  Trarpo^ 
6€\7]/jLa,  says  Nyss.  contr.  Eunom.  xii.  p.  345.  The  prin- 
ciple to  be  observed  in  the  use  of  such  words  is  this  : 
that  we  must  ever  speak  of  the  Father^s  will,  command, 
&c._,  and  the  Son^s  fulfilment,  assent^  &c.,  as  if  one  act. 

T  Vid.  de  Deer.  9.  contr.  Gent.  46.  Iren.  Haer. 
iii.  8^  n.  3.  Origen  contr.  Cels.  ii.  9.  Tertull.  adv. 
Prax.  12  fin.  Patres  Antiodh.  ap.  Routh.  t.  2, 
p.  468.  Prosper  in  Psalm.  148.  (149.)  Basil,  de  Sp.  S. 
n.   20.     Hilar.   Trin.   iv.    16.     vid.   art.  Mediation, 

That  the  Father  speaks  and  the  Son  hears,  or  con- 
trariwise, that  the  Son  speaks  and  the  Father  hears, 
are  expressions  for  the  sameness  of  nature  and  the 
agreement  of  Father  and  Son.^^    Didym.  de  Sp.  S.  36. 

The  Father^s  bidding  is  not  other  than  His  Word ; 
so  that  have  not  spoken  of  Myself^  He  perhaps 
meant  to  be  equivalent  to  ^  I  was  not  born  from 
Myself.^  For  if  the  Word  of  the  Father  speaks,  He 
pronounces  Himself,  for  He  is  the  Father^s  Word/^  &c. 
August,  de  Trin.  i.  26.  On  this  mystery^  vid.  Petav. 
Trin.  vi.  4. 

^  When  God  commands  others,  .  .  .  then  the  hearer 
answers, . . .  for  each  of  these  receives  the  Mediator  Word 
which  makes  known  the  will  of  the  Father ;  but  when 
the  Word  Himself  works  and  creates,  there  is  no 
questioning  and  answer,  for  the  Father  is  in  Him,  and 
the  Word  in  the  Father ;  but  it  suffices  to  will,  and 
the  work  is  done.^^  Orat.  ii.  §  31.  Such  is  the  Catho- 
lic doctrine.  For  the  contrary  Arian  view,  even  when 
it  is  highest,  vid.  Euseb.  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  3  ;  also  vid. 
supra,    art.   EitsebiuSj    in    which   passage,    p.  164, 


BovXr],  Kara  ^ovXrjaiv* 


395 


the  Father^s  vevjiara  are  spoken  of,  a  word  common 
with  the  Arians.  Euseb.  ibid.  p.  75.  de  Laud.  Const, 
p.  528.  Eunom.  Apol.  20  fin.  The  word  is  used  of 
the  Son^s  command  given  to  the  creation,  in  Athan. 
contr.  Gent.  e.g.  42,  44,  &c.  S.  Cyril.  Hier.  frequently, 
as  the  Arians,  uses  it  of  the  Father.  Catech.  x.  5.  xi. 
passim,  xv.  25,  &c.  The  difference  between  the  ortho- 
dox and  Arian  views  on  this  point  is  clearly  drawn 
out  by  S.  Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  21. 


396 


rivvrjfjLa, 


Offspring.  This  word  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence 
in  Athan.  He  speaks  of  it,  Orat.  iv.  3,  as  virtually 
Scriptural.  ^^If  any  one  declines  to  say  ^offspring/ 
and  only  says  that  the  Word  exists  with  Grod,  let  such 
a  one  fear  lest,  declinmg  an  expression  of  Scripture, 
{to  Xeyofjievov,)  he  fall  into  extravagance/^  &c.  Yet 
Basil,  contr.  Eunom.  ii.  6 — 8,  explicitly  disavows  the 
word,    as   an   unscriptural   invention   of  Eunomius. 

That  the  Father  begat  we  are  taught  in  many  places  : 
that  the  Son  is  an  oflFspring  we  never  heard  up  to  this 
day,  for  Scripture  says,  ^unto  us  a  child  is  born,  unto 
us  a  son  is  given/  c.  7.  He  goes  on  to  say  that  it 
is  fearful  to  give  Him  names  of  our  own,  to  whom  God 
has  given  a  name  which  is  above  every  name;^^  and 
observes  that  offspring  is  not  the  word  which  even  a 
human  father  would  apply  to  his  son,  as  for  instance 
we  read,     Child,  [reicvov,)  go  into  the  vineyard,^^  and 

Who  art  thou,  my  son  ?  moreover  that  fruits  of  the 
earth  are  called  offspring,  (^^I  will  not  drink  of  the 
offspring  of  this  vine,^^)  rarely  animated  things,  except 
indeed  in  such  instances  as,  O  generation  (offspriug) 
of  vipers/^  Nyssen  defends  his  brother,  contr.  Eunom. 
Orat.  iii.  p.  105.  In  the  Arian  formula  ^^an  offspring, 
but  not  as  one  of  the  offsprings/^  it  is  synonymous  with 

work^^  or     creature.^^    On  the  other  hand  Epipha- 


Tevvr]fia» 


397 


nius  uses  it^  e.g.  Hasr.  76,  8,  and  Naz.  Orat.  29.  2. 
Eusebius,  Demonstr.  Ev.  iv.  2.  Pseudo-Basil,  adv. 
Eunom.  iv.  p.  280  fin.  It  may  be  added,  too,  that  S. 
Basil  seems  to  have  changed  his  mind,  for  he  uses  the 
word  in  Hom.  contr.  Sabell.  t.  2,  p.  192.  It  is 
remarkable  that  this  Homily  in  substance  (i.e.  the 
contr.  Sabell.  Greg.^^  which  is  so  like  it  that  it  cannot 
really  be  another,  unless  S.  Basil  copies  it)  is  also  given 
to  S.  Athan. 


398 


THE  T€V7]T0Vy  FevvrjTov. 


The  Tevr)T0Vy  Tevvrjrov* 

In  these  Treatises  j6V7]tov  and  j€vv7]tov  seem  to  be 
one  word^  whatever  distinction  was  made  at  a  later 
date.  So  they  were  considered  by  S.  Ignatius,  by  the 
Neo-Platonists,  and  by  the  Arians,  who  availed  them- 
selves of  the  equivoque  of  meaning,  in  order  to  pro- 
nounce our  Lord  a  creature,  yivprjfia,  though  not  as 
other  creatures.  So  also  by  Athan.  and  Basil.  Hence 
perhaps  it  is  that  Basil  is  severe  on  the  application  of 
jevvrj/xa  to  our  Lord,  his  brother  Gregory  supporting 
him.  Athanasius  on  the  other  hand  uses  it  of  our  Lord 
with  an  explanation.  After  a  time  the  distinction  was 
made,  and  this  will  account  for  other  Fathers,  Nazianz. 
&c.,  following  Athanasius.  vid.  supr.  art.  jivvrj/jua^  Also 
Damasc.  F.  O.  i.  8,  p.  135,  and  Le  Quien^s  note;  also 
note  in  Cotelerius,  in  Ign.  Eph.  t.  2,  p.  13. 

^  Athanasius  considers  that  Scripture  sanctions  both 
the  one  and  the  two  uses  ;  and  he  considers  the  one  and 
the  same  word,  in  its  two  forms,  to  have  the  meaning  of 
Son,  but  that  Son^^  admits  of  a  primary  sense  and  of 
a  secondary.  He  virtually  says,  It  is  true  that  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  creatures  whom  He  has  made 
may  both  be  called  r^evvrjixara,  but  both  in  a  very 
different  sense.  Both  may  be  called  ^  Sons  of  God,' 
but  the  Word  of  God  is  true  j€Pvr]/jba  by  nature, 
whereas  creatures  are  sons,  yevv^/jLaraj  only  by  adoption, 


THE  TevrjTov,  TevvT^TOV, 


399 


and  that  adoption  tlirougli  a  mere  fjuerovala  or  par- 
ticipation of  the  divine  nature,  which  is  a  gift  of  grace  ; 
but  our  Lord  possesses  the  very  ovo-la  of  the  Father, 
and  is  thereby  His  fulness,  and  has  all  His  attributes/^ 

Hence  Athan.  says,  Things  generate,  yevvrjra,  cannot 
receive  this  name,  (God's  handiwork  though  they  be,) 
except  so  far  as,  offer  their  making,  they  partake  of 
the  Son  who  is  the  True  Generate,  and  are  therefore 
said  to  have  been  generated  also,  not  at  all  in  their 
own  nature,  but  because  of  their  participation  of  the 
Son  in  the  Spirit/^    Orat.  i.  §  56.    Vid.  art.  ^Ap^^* 

^  It  is  by  a  like  neglect  of  the  one  v  and  the  two,  that 
our  Lord  is  called  /jbovoy€v^<;  with  a  single  v.  And  Athan. 
speaks  of  the  yeveai^  of  human  sons,  and  of  the  Divine,  de 
Deer.  §  11 ;  and  in  de  Syn.  §  47,  he  observes  that  S.  Ig- 
natius calls  the  Son  761^77x09  koL  ayevrjro^;,  without  a  hint 
about  the  distinction  of  roots.  Again,  one  of  the  original 
Arian  positions  was  that  our  Lord  was  a  yevvrjixa  aXk! 
ov/c  &)?  €P  TO)v  yevvrj/ubdrcov,  which  Athan.  frequently 
notices  and  combats,  vid.  Orat.  ii.  19.  But  instead  of 
answering  it  by  showing  that  our  Lord's  epithet  should 
have  a  double  v  and  creatures  a  single,  he  allows 
yevvrjfjidTcov  to  be  applied  to  creatures  improperly,  and 
only  argues  that  there  is  a  proper  sense  of  it  in  which 
it  applies  to  the  "Word,  not  as  one  of  a  niimher,  as  the 
Arians  said,  but  solely,  incommunicably,  as  being  the 
fjbovoyevr)^*  It  may  be  admitted,  as  evident  even  from 
this  passage,  that  though  Athan.  does  not  distin- 
guish between  yevrjrov  and  yevvrjrov,  yet  he  considers 
ryeyevvrjaOai  and  yei^vrj/na  as  especially  appropriate  to  the 
Son,  yeyovevai  and  yevo/jievo^  to  the  creation. 


400 


AriiJuiovpfy6(;, 


The  y€vv7j(Tt^  of  the  Eternal  Son  is  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  idea  of  creation ;  so  much  so  that  Origen 
thought  that  the  creation  was  eternal  because  the  Son 
was  so;  and  Tertullian  thought  that  the  Son  was  not 
eternal  because  the  creation  was  not. 

These  were  erroneous  conclusions,  but  Catholic 
theologians  allow  thus  much  of  truth  in  them,  not  that 
the  Creator  and  the  creation  were  co-eval,  but  that  the 
mission  of  the  Son  to  create  is  included  in  the  eternal 
gennesis  ;  so  that,  as  by  the  Father^s  teaching  the  Son 
is  meant  ^*  doctum  et  scientem  genuisse/^  and,  as  His 
committing  judgment  to  Him  is  judicem  ipsum  gig- 
nere,'^  so  the  mission  to  create  signifies  the  gennesis  of 
a  Son  in  eternity  who  is  in  time  to  be  Creator,  vid. 
Petav.  de  Trin.  viii.  1,  §  10.  Hence  S.  Augustine  says, 
"  In  Verbo  Unico  Dei  omnia  prsecepta  sunt  Dei,  quae 
ille  gignens  dedit  nascenti.^^  contr.  Max.  ii.  14,  9,  and 
still  more  definitely  I  understand  S.  Thomas  to  say, 
^^Importatur  in  Yerbo  ratio  factiva  eorum  quse  Deus 
facit.^^    Summ.  1,  qu.  34,  art.  3. 

Immediately  upon  the  creation  follows  the  second 
act,  viz.  of  conservation ;  for  the  Divine  Hand  is  of  such 
incomprehensible  force  and  intensity  in  operation,  that 
the  thing  created  needs,  by  the  intervention  of  its 
Creator,  to  be  enabled  to  bear  creation.  Things 


Ar]/j,Lovpy6<;. 


401 


created/^  says  Athanasius^  could  not  have  endured 
His  absolute  nature  and  His  splendour  from  the 
Father^  unless,  condescending  by  the  Father^s  love  for 
man,  He  had  supported  them  and  taken  hold  of  them, 
and  brought  them  into  substance/^  &c.  Orat.  ii.  §  64. 
vid.  aKpaTo<;, 


VOL.  11. 


402 


DiabolicaL  This  is  Athan/s  judgment  about  the  Arians. 
vid.  Deer.  §  5  fin.  Orat.  ii.  §  38,  74.  iii.  §  17.  Ep. 
^g.  §  4 — 6.  de  Sent.  Dion.  27  fin._,  where  he  says, 
^MVho  then  will  continue  to  call  these  men  Christians, 
whose  leader  is  the  devil,  and  not  rather  diabolical  ?  and 
he  adds,  not  only  Christ^s  foes  in  fight,  'x^pLo-ro/jbd'x^oL, 
but  diabolical  also.^^  Again,  *^  though  the  diabolical 
men  rave,^^  Orat.  iii.  §  8;  friends  of  the  devil,  and 
his  spirits.''  ad  Ep.  Mg.  5. 

%  In  Orat.  iii.  §  8,  there  seems  an  allusion  to  false 
accusation  or  lying  (which  is  the  proper  meaning  of  the 
word  Sia/SdWcov),  as  occurring  shortly  before.  And  so  in 
Apol.  ad  Const,  when  he  calls  Magnentius  Sia/3oXo9,  it 
is  as  being  a  traitor,  17  ;  and  soon  after  he  says  that  his 
accuser  was  rov  StajSoXov  rporrov  dvaXajScov,  where  the 
word  has  no  article,  and  SiajSe/SXTjimai  and  htejiXrjOriv 
have  preceded;  vid.  also  Hist.  Ar.  52  fin.  And  so  in 
Sent.  D.  3,  4,  his  speaking  of  the  Arians'  father  the 
devil,''  is  explained  by  rou?  irarepa'^  StajSaXXovrcop  and 
TT)^  €69  TOP  eiriaicoiTov  Stal3oX7]<^, 

^  Another  reason  of  his  so  accounting  them,  was 
their  atrocious  cruelty  towards  Catholics ;  this  leads 
him  elsewhere  to  break  out,  0  new  heresy,  that  has 
put  on  the  whole  devil  in  irreligious  doctrine  and  con- 
duct!^' Hist.  Arian.  §  66;  also  Alexander,  diabolical," 
ap.  Theod.  Hist.  1.  3,  p.  731 ;  satanical,"  ibid.  p.  741. 
vid.  also  Socr.  i.  9,  p.  30  fin.    Hilar,  contr.  Const.  17. 


EIS09. 


403 


£1^09  oWoQ  €lSov^  OeorrjTo^y  says  Athan.  Syn.  §  52. 
The  word  eISo9;  face,  cast  of  countenance,  assemblage 
of  features,  is  generally  applied  to  the  Son,  and  is 
synonymous  with  hypostasis  ;  but  it  is  remarkable  that 
here  as  elsewhere  it  is  almost  synouymous  with  ovaia 
or  (f)v(TL^,  Indeed  in  one  sense  nature,  substance,  and 
hnijostasis,  are  all  synonymous,  i.e.  as  one  and  all 
denoting  the  Una  Res,  which  is  Almighty  God. 
They  diflfered,  in  that  the  word  hypostasis  regards 
the  One  God  as  He  is  the  Son.  The  apparent  confusion 
is  useful  then  as  reminding  us  of  this  great  truth,  that 
God  is  One  ;  vid.  infr.  art.  Mia  (^vai<=;. 

In  Orat.  iii.  §  C,  first  the  Son^s  e2So9  is  the  elSo?  of  the 
Father,  then  the  Son  is  the  elSo?  of  the  Father^s  God- 
head, and  then  in  the  Son  is  the  eI8o9  of  the  Father. 
These  expressions  are  equivalent,  if  Father  and  Son 
are,  Bach  separately,  0X09  ^€09.  S.  Greg.  Naz.  uses  the 
word  oTTLaOca,  (Exod.  xxxiii.  23,  which  forms  a  contrast 
toeZSo9,)  for  the  Divine  Works.    Orat.  28.  3. 

^  Vid.  also  in  Gen.  xxxii.  30,  31,  Sept.,  where  it  is 
translated  ^^face,^^  in  Vulg.,  though  in  John  v.  37 
^^species.^^  vid.  Justin  Tryph.  126.  In  Orat.  iii.  §  15, 
eZSo9  is  also  used  in  composition  for  ^Mcind.''^  Athan. 
says  as  above,  there  is  but  one  face  of  Godhead  yet 
the  word  is  used  of  the  Son  as  synonymous  with    image. ''^ 

c  c  2 


404 


It  would  seem  as  if  there  were  a  certain  class  of  words, 
all  expressive  of  the  One  Divine  Substance,  which  admit 
of  more  appropriate  application,  either  ordinarily  or 
under  circumstances,  to  This  or  That  Divine  Person  who 
is  also  that  One  Substance.  Thus  Being  is  more 
descriptive  of  the  Father  as  the  ivTjr^r]  Oeorrjro^,  and  He 
is  said  to  be  ^*^the  Being  of  the  Son;^^  yet  the  Son  is 
really  the  One  Supreme  Being  also.  On  the  other  hand 
the  word  ^^form/^  fjbopcj^r),  and  ^^face/^  el8o9,  are  rather 
descriptive  of  the  Divine  Substance  in  the  Person  of 
the  Son,  and  He  is  called  the  form  and  the  face 
of  the  Father,^^  yet  there  is  but  one  Form  and  Face  of 
God,  who  is  at  once  Each  of  Three  Persons ;  while 
Spirit is  appropriated  to  the  Third  Person,  though 
God  is  a  Spirit.  Thus  again  S.  Hippolytus  says  i/c 
[tov  7raTpo<;^  Svva/jbt<;  yet  shortly  before,  after 

mentioning  the  Two  Persons,  he  adds,  Svva/jLLv  Se  fxiav, 
contr.  Noet.  7  and  11.  And  thus  the  word  Sub- 
sistence,^^ vTToarao-L^^y  which  expresses  the  One  Divine 
Substance,  has  been  found  more  appropriate  to  express 
that  Substance  viewed  personally.  Other  words  may 
be  used  correlatively  of  either  Father  or  Son ;  thus 
the  Father  is  the  Life  of  the  Son,  the  Son  the  Life  of 
the  Father;  or,  again,  the  Father  is  in  the  Son  and 
the  Son  in  the  Father.  Others  in  common,  as  the 
Father^s  Godhead  is  the  Son^s,^^  97  TrarptKr)  vlov  deoTT]^;, 
as  indeed  the  word  ovo-ca  itself.  Other  words  on  the 
contrary  express  the  Substance  in  This  or  That  Person 
only,  as  Word,^^  ^^Image,^'  &c.  The  word  eISo9  also 
occurs  Orat.  i.  20.  Ep.  Mg,  17.  contr.  Sabell.  Greg.  8 
and  12. 


"EvaapKo^  nrapovaia — 'E^aiperov.  405 


"Ev(TapKo<;  TrapovcTLa. 

This  phrase  or  its  equivalent  is  very  frequent  with 
Athan.  vid.  Orat.  i.  §  8,  53,  59,  62  fin.  ii.  6,  10,  55, 
66  twice,  72  fin.  iii.  28,  35.  Incarn.  20.  Sent.  D. 
9.  Ep.  Mg.  4.  Serap.  i.  3,  9.  Vid.  also  Cyril.  Catech.  iii. 
11.  xii.  15.  xiv.  27,  30.  Epiph.  H^r.  77,  17.  The 
Eutychians  avail  themselves  of  it  at  the  Council  of 
Constantinople,  vid.  Hard.  Cone.  t.  2,  pp.  164,  236. 
Instead  of  it  einhiqiiia  is  used  Orat.  i.  §  59,  three  times; 
{eirehrjiJbrjaev,  iii.  30,  and  evacoparov,  i.  §  53.) 


^E^aiperoVj 

Or  prerogative,  Orat.  ii.  §  19,  iii.  3,  iv.  §  28,  literally 
special,  singular.  Vid.  also  Euseb.  Eccl.  Th.  pp.  47, 
73,  89,  124,  129.  Theod.  Hist.  p.  732.  Nyssen.  c. 
Eunom.  iii.  p.  133.  Epiph.  H^r.  76,  p.  970.  Cyr.  Thes. 
p.  160. 


406 


THE  'E^OVKOVTLOV, 


The  ^ E^ovKovTLov, 


A  TITLE  of  tlie  Arians^  from  ovic  ovrcov,  out  of 
nothing/^  one  of  tlieir  original  positions  concerning 
the  Son.  Theodoret  says  that  they  were  also  called 
Exacionitae^  from  the  name  of  their  place  of  meeting, 
Haer.  iv.  3^  and  Da  Cange  confirms  it  so  far  as  to  show- 
that  there  was  a  place  or  quarter  of  Constantinople 
called  Exocionium  or  Exacionium.  Some  have  thought 
that  Exucontians  and  Exocionites  are  perhaps  the  same 
word  corrupted.  At  the  same  time,  since  the  Arians 
of  Constantinople  were  of  the  violent  sort  who  were 
called  by  various  names,  Anomoeaiis,  Aetians,  Euno- 
mians,  Acacians,  as  well  as  pure  Arians,  it  is  not 
improbable  that,  in  order  to  distinguish  them  from  the 
more  moderate  heretics,  they  were  also  called  in 
Constantinople  from  Exocionium,  the  district  of  the 
great  metropolis  to  which  they  belonged. 


407 


Kar^  iTTLvotav,  eiTLvoetv,  conception.  This  is  a  word 
very  common  with  Athanasius.  It  expresses  the  view 
taken  by  the  mind  of  theological  realities^  whether 
that  view  be  the  true  view  or  not ;  thus  it  is  used  both 
in  reference  to  heretical  error  and  to  Catholic  faith. 
Thus  Athan.,  Orat.  i.  init.,  speaks  of  heresies  as  einvor}' 
aaaat  fiavtav,  implying  that  there  is  no  objective  truth 
corresponding  to  those  conceptions  which  they  so 
vehemently  insist  upon.  And  Socrates^  speaking  of 
the  decree  of  the  Council  of  Alexandria,  362,  against 
Apollinaris  :  for,  not  as  originating,  eTnvor](TavTe<^,  any 
novel  devotion,  did  they  introduce  it  into  the  Church, 
but  what  from  the  beginning  the  Ecclesiastical  Tradi- 
tion declared/^  Hist.  iii.  7.  And  the  Arians  allowed 
what  was  imputed  to  them  as  far  as  this,  that  they 
were  strenuous  from  the  first  in  maintaining  that  the 
titles  given  to  our  Lord,  viz.  Word,  Wisdom,  &c., 
were  not  to  be  taken  as  expressing  literal  facts^  but 
were  mere  names  given  to  Him  in  honour  and  as  a 
reward.  Thus  in  the  Thalia,  ^^He  is  conceived  in  num- 
berless conceptions,  eV^z/o/at?.^^  de  Syn.  §  15.  Hence 
Athan.  says  they  held  that  He  who  is  really  Son  is 
but  Kar  eTVivoiav  Word,  as  He  is  Vine,  and  Way,  and 
Door,  and  Tree  of  Life,  and  that  He  is  called  Wisdom 
also  only  in  name  (vid.  art.  ^Ovofiara),  the  proper  and 


408 


true  Wisdom  of  tlie  Father,  which  co-exists  ingene- 
rately  with  Him,  being  other  than  the  Son,  by  which 
He  even  made  the  Son,  and  named  Him  Wisdom  as 
partaking  of  Wisdom. Orat.ii.  §  37.  Not  that  they  even 
allowed  Him  really  to  be  Son,  except  in  the  sense  that 
we  are  sons  of  God,  that  is,  because  adoption  involves 
a  gift  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  a  real  principle  of  a  new 
birth.  Thus  Athan.  quotes  or  charges  Arius  elsewhere 
as  saying,  He  is  not  the  very  and  only  Word  of  the 
Father,  but  is  in  name  only  called  Word  and  Wisdom, 
and  is  called  by  grace  Son  and  Power.^^  Orat.  i.  §  9 ; 
and  just  after  he  contrasts  true  Son  with  the  Arian 
tenet,  Son  by  adoption,  which  is  from  participation 
of  the  Spirit  and  Kar^  eTrivoiavJ^  vid.  also  de  Sent. 
D.  2.    Ep.  Mg,  12,  13,  14.    Orat.  iv.  §  2. 

The  word,  however,  has  also  a  good  meaning  and 
use,  as  expressive  of  the  nearest  approximation  in 
human  thought  to  the  supernatural  truths  of  Revelation, 
and  thus  equivalent  to  economical,  (vid.  art.  in  voc.) 
Thus  in  our  thoughts  of  the  Almighty,  though  He  is 
in  reality  most  simple  and  uncompounded,  without 
parts,  passions,  attributes,  or  properties,  we  consider 
Him  as  good  or  holy,  or  as  angry  or  pleased,  denoting 
some  particular  aspect  in  which  our  infirmity  views — in 
which  alone  it  can  view — what  is  infinite  and  incompre- 
hensible. That  is,  He  is  icar^  eiTLvoLav  holy  or  merci- 
ful, being  in  reality  a  Unity  which  is  all  mercifulness 
and  also  all  holiness,  not  in  the  way  of  qualities,  but  as 
one  indivisible  Perfection,  which  is  too  great  for  us  to 
conceive  as  It  is.  And  for  the  very  reason  that  we 
cannot  conceive  It  simply,  we  are  bound  to  use  thank- 


^EiTLvoia — 'E7rc(T7r€Lpa<;. 


409 


fully  these  conceptions^  which  are  true  as  far  as  they 
go,  and  our  best  possible ;  since  some  conceptions^ 
however  imperfect,  are  better  than  none.  They  stand 
for  realities  which  they  do  not  reach,  and  must  be 
accepted  for  what  they  do  not  adequately  represent. 
But  when  the  mind  comes  to  recognise  this  existing 
inadequacy,  and  to  distrust  itself,  it  is  tempted  to  rush 
into  the  opposite  extreme,  and  to  conclude  that  because 
it  cannot  understand  fully,  it  does  not  realise  anything, 
or  that  its  eTrivoLai  are  but  ovoyiara. 


Vid.  Scripture  Passages, 


410 


Evcri^eca,  aae/Seta,  &c._,  here  translated  piety,  &c.^ 
stand  for  orthodoxy  and  heterodoxy^  &c.,  throughout, 
being  taken  from  St.  PauFs  text,  fjueja  to  t^9  evae^eia<; 
fjbV(7T7]pLov,  1  Tim.  iii.  16,  iv.  8.  ^ '  Ms^gnum  p)ietat{s 
mysterium/^  Vulg. 

E.g.  TTjv  TTj^  alpeaeco^  aae^eiav,  Deer,  init,  oaov 
€va€/3ov<;  <^povr]ae(d<^  rj  'Apetavr)  aipecn^  io-reprjrai,  ibid, 
§  2.  TL  eXeiire  StSao-KaXta^  eh  evae^euav  rfj  KadoXiKr/ 
eicKX/qaia-y  Syn.  §  3.  97  olfcovfjbevtfcr}  avvoSo'i  Tov"Apeiov 
e^e^dXe  ov  (f)€pov(Ta  rrjv  aae^euav.  Orat.  i.  §  7,  et 
passim.  Hence  Arius  ends  his  letter  to  Eusebius  Nic. 
with  aX7]9a)^  Evae^ie.    Theod.  Hist.  i.  4. 

IF  A  curious  instance  of  the  force  of  the  word  as  a 
turning-point  in  controversy  occurs  in  a  Homily, 
(given  to  S.  Basil  by  Petavius,  Fronto  Dacaeus,  Com- 
befis,  Du  Pin,  Fabricius,  and  Oudin,  doubted  of  by 
Tillemont,  and  rejected  by  Cave  and  Garnier,)  where  it 
is  said  that  the  denial  of  our  Lady^s  perpetual  virginity, 
though  ^Hovers  of  Christ  do  not  bear  to  hear  that 
God^s  Mother  ever  ceased  to  be  Virgin,^^  yet  does 
no  injury  to  the  doctrine  of  religion/'  firjSev  tm  Tr]<; 
evae^eia^  TrapaXv/jbaiveraL  Xoyo),  i.e.  (according  to  the 
above  explanation  of  the  word)  to  the  orthodox  view  of 
the  Incarnation,  vid.  Basil.  0pp.  t.  2,  p.  599.  vid.  on  the 
passage  Petav.  de  Incarn.  xiv.  3,  §  7,  and  Fronto- Due.  in 
loc.    Pearson  refers  to  this  passage,  and  almost  trans- 


Evae^eia, 


411 


lates  ttie  \0709  evae^€La<;  by  mystery/^  Apost.  Greedy 
Art  3.  Although  it  may  be  thought  sn^icient  as  to  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  that,  when  our  Saviour  was 
conceived  and  born^  His  Mother  was  a  Virgin^  though 
whatsoever  should  have  followed  after  could  have  no 
reflective  operation  upon  the  first-fruit  of  her  womb, 
.  .  .  yet  the  peculiar  eminency/^  &c. 

IT  John  of  Antioch,  however,  furnishes  us  with  a 
definition  of  pietas,  as  meaning  obedience  to  the  word  of 
God.  He  speaks,  writing  to  Proclus,  of  a  letter  which 
evidenced  caution  and  piety,  i.e.  orthodoxy:  piety, 
because  you  went  along  the  royal  way  of  Divine 
Scripture  in  your  remarks,  rightly  confessing  the  word 
of  truth,  not  venturing  to  declare  anything  of  your 
own  authority  without  Scripture  testimonies;  caution, 
because  together  ivitli  divine  Scripture  you  propounded 
also  statements  of  the  Fathers,  in  order  to  prove  what 
you  advanced/''  ap.  Facund.  i.  1. 


412 


OeavSpLKT)  ivepyeca. 


OeavSpLfct]  ivepyeca, 

Operatio  Deivirilisy  the  Man-God^s  action/^  By  the 
word  evepyeia  is  meant  in  theology  the  action  or  opera- 
tion, the  family  of  acts,  which  naturally  belongs  to  and 
discriminates  the  substance  or  nature  of  a  thino-  from 
that  of  other  things ;  and  not  only  the  mere  operation, 
but  also  inclusively  the  faculty  of  such  operation  ;  as 
certain  nutritive  or  medicinal  qualities  adhere,  and  serve 
as  definitions,  to  certain  plants  and  minerals,  or  as  the 
ivepyeta  and  the  epyov  of  a  seraph  may  be  viewed  as 
being  the  adoration  of  the  Holy  Trinity. 

This  being  laid  down,  it  would  seem  to  follow  that 
our  Lord,  having  two  natures,  has  two  attendant  epya 
and  two  evepyetai,  and  this  in  fact  is  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine ;  whereas  the  Monothelites  maintained  He  had 
but  one,  as  if,  with  the  Monophysites,  they  held  but 
one  nature  of  Christ,  the  divine  and  human  energies 
making  up  one  single  third  energy,  neither  divine  nor 
human, — for,  ia  the  Monophysite  creed,  God  and  man 
made  one  third  and  compound  being,  who  would 
necessarily  have  one  compound  energy,  and,  as  will 
is  one  kind  of  energy,  one  only  will. 

This  one  and  only  energy  of  our  Lord,  as  proceeding 
from  what  they  considered  His  one  composite  nature, 
they  denoted  by  the  orthodox  phrase,  ivepyeia 
OeavSptKTj/'  diverting  it  from  its  true  sense.  Catholic 


OeavSpcKT]  ivepyeca. 


413 


theologians^  holding  two  energies^  one  for  each  na- 
ture, speak  of  them  in  three  ways,  viz.  as  a  divine 
energy,  a  human,  and  a  union  or  concurrence  of  the 
two ;  this  last  they  call  OeavSpiKr],  but  in  a  sense  quite 
distinct  from  the  use  of  the  word  by  the  Monothe- 
lites.  Sometimes  our  Lord  exerts  His  divine  energia, 
as  when  He  protects  His  people ;  sometimes  His 
human,  as  when  he  underwent  hunger  and  thirst; 
sometimes  both  at  once,  as  in  making  clay  and  restoring 
sight,  or  in  His  suffering  for  His  people  ;  but  in  this 
last  instance,  there  is  no  intermingling  of  the  divine 
and  the  human,  and,  though  it  may  be  spoken  of  as  a 
double  energy,  still  there  are  in  fact  two,  not  one. 

It  is  this  OeavSpLfcrj  ivepyeta  that  is  spoken  of  in  the 
following  passages  : — 

^^And  thus  when  there  was  need  to  raise  Peter^s 
wife^s  mother  who  was  sick  of  a  fever.  He  stretched 
forth  His  hand  humanly,  but  He  stopped  the  illness 
divinely.  And  in  the  case  of  the  man  blind  from  the 
birth,  human  was  the  spittle  which  he  gave  forth  from 
the  flesh,  but  divinely  did  He  open  the  eyes  through 
the  clay.  And  in  the  case  of  Lazarus,  He  gave  forth 
a  human  voice,  as  man  ;  but  divinely,  as  God,  did  He 
raise  Lazarus  from  the  dead.''^    Orat.  iii.  32. 

When  He  is  said  to  hunger  and  thirst,  and  to  toil, 
and  not  to  know,  and  to  sleep,  and  to  weep,  and  to 
ask,  and  to  flee,  and  to  be  born,  and  to  deprecate  the 
chalice,  and  in  a  word  to  undergo  all  that  belongs  to 
the  flesh,  let  it  be  said,  as  is  congruous,  in  each  case, 
^  Christ^s  then  hungering  or  thirsting /or  us  in  fJieJlesh, 
and  saying  He  did  not  know,  and  being  buffeted  and 


414 


OeavSpLKT]  ivepyeca. 


toiling  for  us  in  the  flesh,  and  being  exalted  too,  and 
born  and  growing  in  the  flesh,  and  fearing  and  hiding 
in  the  flesh,  and  sayings  If  it  he  possible  let  this  chalice 
pass  from  Me,  and  being  beaten  and  receiving  gifts 
for  us  in  the  flesh  ;  and  in  a  word,  all  sach  things  for  its 
in  the  flesh/     &c.    Orat.  iii.  §  34. 

When  He  touched  the  leper,  it  was  the  man  that 
was  seen ;  but  something  beyond  man,  when  He 
cleansed  him/^  &c.  Ambros.  Epist.  i.  46,  n.  7.  Hil. 
Trin.  x.  23  fin.  vid.  Incarnation  and  Tivo  Natures,  and 
S.  Leo^s  extracts  in  his  Ep.  165.  Chrysol.  Serm.  34 
and  35.    Paul,  ap  Cone.  Eph.  t.  iii.  (p.  1620,  Labbe.) 


415 


@€oiJLdj(o<^,  XpiaTOiJbd')(o<^. 

ViD.  Acts  V.  39.  xxiii.  9.  text.  rec.  These  epithets  are 
in  very  frequent  use  in  Athan.^  in  speaking  of  the 
Arians ;  also  dvTtfjia')(^6/ji6V0L  t(Z  acoTTjpi,  Ep.  Encycl. 
§  5.  And  in  the  beginning  of  the  controversy^ 
Alexander  ap.  Socr.  i.  Q,  p.  10^  p.  11^  p.  13.  Theod. 
Hist.  i.  3^  p.  729.  And  so  Oeoijud^o^  j\(joo-cra,  Basil, 
contr.  Eunom.  ii.  27  fin.  ')(^pLcrTo/jid')(^o)v,  in  his  Ep.  236 
init.  Vid.  also  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  19^  p.  24.  Geofid^xpi 
is  used  of  other  heretics,  e.g.  the  Manichees,  by  Greg. 
Naz.  Orat.  45.  §  8. 

IT  The  tide  contains,  in  Athan.^s  use  of  it,  an  allusion 
to  the  antediluvian  giants  e.g.  ^i^avTa<^  OeofxaxovvTa^^, 
Orat.  iii.  §.  42.  vid.  also  Naz.,  of  the  disorderly  bishops 
during  the  Arian  ascendency.  Orat.  43.  26,  and  Socr. 
V.  10.  Sometimes  the  mythological  giants  are  spoken 
of.  Orat.  ii.  §  32.  In  Hist.  Arian.  74,  he  calls  Con- 
s  tan  tins  a  ytXa^;. 

IT  Xoyofia'x^La  too  is  used  with  reference  to  the  divine 
X6709  and  the  fight  against  Him,  as  ')(^pL(7T0iJba')(eLv  and 
Oeo/jca'x^elv,  Thus  \o'yoiJba')(elv  /jLeXerijaavre^,  koI  Xolitov 
'TTvevfjLarofJLa'X^ovvTe^^y  ecrovrat  fier  oXlyov  ve/cpol  rfj  dXoyla, 
Serap.  iv.  1. 


416 


QeoTTj^  (vid.  TTinity). 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity  admits  of  being 
called  contrary  to  reason^  this  must  be  on  the  ground 
of  its  being  incompatible  with  some  eternal  truth, 
necessary  axiom^  &c._,  or  with  some  distinct  experience, 
and  not  merely  because  it  is  in  its  nature  inconceivable 
and  unimaginable ;  for  if  to  be  inconceivable  makes  it 
untrue,  then  we  shall  be  obliged  to  deny  facts  of  daily 
experience,  e.g.  the  action  of  the  muscles  which  fol- 
lows upon  an  act  of  the  will. 

However,  clear  as  this  is,  the  language  by  which  we 
logically  express  the  doctrine  will  be  difficult  to  inter- 
pret and  to  use  intelligently,  unless  we  keep  in  mind 
the  fundamental  truths  which  constitute  the  mystery, 
and  use  them  as  a  key  to  such  language. 

E.g.  the  Father^s  Godhead  is  the  Son^s,  or  is  in  the 
Son.  Orat.  i.  §  52.  *^H  irarpticr]  avrov  Beorr)^,  Orat.  i. 
§  45,  49.  ii.  §  18,  73.  iii.  §  26.  r]  irarpiKr]  (f)v(TL<;  avrov. 
i.  §  40.    TO  irarpiKov  ^&)9  6  iii.  §  53.    7}  Oeorrj^;  /cat 

rj  IhiOTT]^  Tov  irarpo^  to  elvai  rov  vlov  ian.  iii.  §  5. 
The  Son  is  worshipped  Kara  Tr]v  TrarptKyv  IStorrjTa.  i. 
§  42.  He  has  rrjv  Tri<;  o/jbotcoo-eco^  evorrjra.  Syn.  §  45. 
He  is  6  avTo<;  rrj  o/jbOLcocreL  to  the  Father.  Deer.  §  20. 
He  has  rrjv  eporrjra  rrj^  (^vae(o<^  /cat  rrjv  ravTorrjra 
TOV  ^ct)T09.  Deer.  §  24.  TavTOTrjTa  t?}9  (pvaeco^,  Basil,  Ep. 
8,  3.  T?59  ovaLa<^,  Cyril,  in  Joan.  iii.  p.  302.  He  is  i^ovala^ 


417 


ov<TL(o^7]<;»  Orat.  iv.  §  1.  77  ova  La  avri]  tt}?  ovaia^  rrj^; 
7raTpLKr]<;  icrrc  yevvrjfjia.  Syn.  §  48.  And  we  are  told 
of  the  prophet  i/c^or]cravTO<;  rrjv  Trarpifcrjv  VTroo-racrtv 
irepl  avTov,  Orat.  iv.  §  33.  vid.  the  present  author^s 
Tract,  fjLLa(pvcrL<;j  §  6  fin. 

^  (f)V(TL<;  seems  sometimes  in  Athanasius  to  be  used, 
not  for  ovaLa,  as  would  be  the  ordinary  application  of 
the  word,  but  for  VTroaraaL^  or  person.    Thus  he  says, 

whereas  the  nature  of  the  Son  is  less  divisible  rela- 
tively to  the  Father  than  radiance  is  relatively  to  the 
sun,  .  .  .  wherefore  should  not  He  be  called  con- 
substantial  ?  de  Syn.  §  52.  And  at  least  this  is  an 
Alexandrian  use  of  the  word.  It  is  found  in  Alexan- 
der ap.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3,  p.  740,  and  it  gives  rise  to 
a  celebrated  question  in  the  Monophysite  controversy, 
as  used  in  S.  CyriFs  phrase,  iiia  ^vcn^  aeaapKco/jievr]. 
S.  Cyril  uses  the  word  both  for  person  and  for  sub- 
stance successively  in  the  following  passage  :  Perhaps 
some  one  will  say,  ^  How  is  the  Holy  and  Adorable 
Trinity  distinguished  into  three  Hypostases,  yet  issues 
in  one  nature  of  Godhead  ?  ^  Because,  the  Same  in 
substance,  necessarily  following  the  difference  of  natures y 
recalls  the  minds  of  believers  to  one  nature  of  Godhead.''^ 
contr.  Nest.  iii.  p.  91.  In  this  passage  One  Nature 
stands  for  one  substance ;  but  three  Natures  is  the 
One  Eternal  Divine  Nature  viewed  in  that  respect  in 
which  He  is  Three.  And  so  S.  Hilary,  ^^naturaa  ex  natura 
gignente  nativitas,^'  de  Syn.  17;  and  essentia  de  es- 
sentia,^^  August  de  Trin.  vii.  n.  3,  and  de  seipso  genuit 
Deus  id  quod  est,^^  de  Fid.  et  Symb.  4  :  i.e.  He  is  the 
Adorable  6e6Tr)<;  viewed  as  begotten.    These  phrases 

VOL.  II.  D  d 


418 


©e6T7j<;, 


mean  that  the  Son  ^vho  is  the  Divine  Substance,  is  from 
the  Father  wJio  is  the  [same]  Divine  Substance.  As  (to 
speak  of  what  is  analogous,  not  parallel)  we  might  say- 
that  man  is  father  of  man/^  not  meaning  by  man  the 
same  individual  in  both  cases,  but  the  same  nature,  so 
here  we  speak,  not  of  the  same  Person  in  the  two  cases, 
but  the  same  Individuum.  All  these  expressions  resolve 
themselves  into  the  original  mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
that  Person  and  Individuum  are  not  equivalent  terms, 
and  we  understand  them  neither  more  nor  less  than  we 
understand  it.  In  like  manner  as  regards  the  Incarna- 
tion, when  St.  Paul  says,  God  was  in  Christ/^  he  does 
not  mean  absolutely  the  Divine  Nature,  which  is  the 
proper  sense  of  the  word,  but  the  Divine  Nature  as 
existing  in  the  Person  of  the  Son.  Hence  too  (vid. 
Petav.  de  Trin.  vi.  10,  §  6)  such  phrases  as  ^^the  Father 
begat  the  Son  from  His  substance."'^  And  in  like  man- 
ner Athan.  just  afterwards  speaks  of  the  Father^s 
Godhead  being  in  the  Son.^^    Orat.  i.  §  52. 

The  fjLova<;  6e6Tr}TO^  is  aSiaipero^.  Orat.  iv.  §  1,  2. 
Though  in  Three  Persons,  they  are  not  fjie/biepLo-fievaCj 
Dion.  ap.  Basil.  Sp.  S.  n.  72.  Athan.  Expos.  F.  §  2  ; 
not  uTrepprjyfjievaL,  Naz.  Orat.  20.  6  ;  not  aTre^evcofjievat 
Kal  SieaTrao-fjievaL,  Orat.  23.  6,  &c.  ;  but  a/jiipLaro^ 
iv  fjL6iJL€pL(T/jL6vot(;  7]  deoTTj^^,    Orat.  31.  14. 

^  Though  the  Divine  Substance  is  both  the  Father 
Ingenerate  and  also  the  Only-begotten  Son,  it  is  not 
itself  ayevv7]T0<^  or  jepvrjTT] ;  which  was  the  objection 
urged  against  the  Catholics  by  Aetius,  Epiph.  Haer. 
76,  10.  Thus  Athan.  says,  de  Deer.  §  30,  He  has 
given  the  authority  of  all  things  to  the  Son,  and. 


419 


having  given  it,  is  once  more,  iraXtv,  the  Lord  of  all 
things  through  the  Word/^  vol.  i.  p.  52.  Again^  ^^the 
Father  having  given  all  things  to  the  Son^  has  all 
things  once  again,  iraXiv  .  .  .  for  the  Son^s  Godhead 
is  the  Godhead  of  the  Father.^^  Orat.  iii.  §  36  fin. 
Hence  rj  i/c  rev  irarpo^  eZ?  tov  viov  6€0Trj<;  appevaro}^ 
KoX  dScatperco^;  Tv^j(aveL,  Expos.  F.  2.  Vera  et  ^eterna 
substantia^  in  se  tota  permanens^  totam  se  coeeternae 
veritati  nativitatis  indulsit/^  Fulgent.  Resp.  7.  And 
S.  Hilary,  ^^Filius  in  Patre  est  et  in  Filio  Pater, 
non  per  transfusionem,  refusionemque  mutuam,  sed 
per  viventis  naturae  perfectam  nativitatem.^^  Trin. 
vii.  31. 


©€Ot6/co<;, 
Vid.  Mary. 


420 


KaraireTaaixa, 


KaraTriraafJia. 

As  Aaron  did  not  change/^  says  Athanasius, 
Orat.  ii.  8^  ^^by  putting  on  his  High-priest^s  dress,  so 
that,  had  any  one  said,  ^Lo,  Aaron  has  this  day  be- 
come High  -priest/  he  had  not  implied  that  he  then  had 
been  born  man,  ...  so  in  the  Lord^s  instance  the 
words,  ^  He  became  ^  and  ^  He  was  made  ^  must  not  be 
understood  of  the  Word,  considered  as  the  Word,^^ 
&c.  &c. 

This  is  one  of  those  protests  by  anticipation  against 
Nestorianism,  which  in  consequence  may  be  abused 
to  the  purposes  of  the  opposite  heresy.  Such  ex- 
pressions as  irepiTiOeiievo^  rrjv  icrOrjra,  eKaXvirrero, 
evSv(Td/ji€vo<;  aco/Jba,  were  familiar  with  the  ApoUinarians, 
against  whom  S.  Athanasius  is,  if  possible,  even  more 
decided.  Theodoret  objects,  Haer.  v.  11,  p.  422,  to  the 
word  irpoKaXvfjbfia,  when  applied  to  our  Lord^s  manhood, 
as  implying  that  He  had  no  soul ;  vid.  also  Naz.  Ep. 
102  fin.  (ed.  1840).  In  Naz.  Ep.  101,  p.  90,  vrapa- 
nreTaafxa  is  used  to  denote  an  ApoUinarian  idea.  Such 
expressions  were  taken  to  imply  that  Christ  was  not 
in  nature  man,  only  in  some  sense  human ;  not  a  sub- 
stance, but  an  appearance ;  yet  S.  Athan.  (if  Athan.) 
contr.  Sabell,  Greg.  4,  has  TrapaTreTreraafiivrjVy  and 
KoXv/ji/jLa,  ibid.  init.  ;  S.  Cyril  Hieros.  fcaraTreraor/jLa, 
Catech.  xii.  26,  xiii.  32,  after  Hebr.  x.  20,  and  Athan. 


Karairiracr/JLa. 


421 


ad  Adelph.  5;  Theodor.  TrapaTreraafiay  Eran.  1,  p.  22, 
and  TrpoKoXv/ji/jia,  ibid.  p.  23,  and  adv.  Gent.  vi.  p.  877; 
and  aroXr],  Eran.  1.  c.  S.  Leo  has  caro  Christi 
velamen/'  Ep.  59,  p.  979.  vid.  also  Serm.  22,  p.  70; 
Serm.  25,  p.  84. 


422 


Kvpco<;,  Kvpim, 


Kvpto<;y  Kvpico<;. 

The  meaning  of  KvpL(o<^,  when  applied  to  language^  on 
the  whole  presents  no  difficulty.  It  answers  to  the 
Latin  proprihy  and  is  the  contrary  to  improprie.  Thus 
Athan.  says,  When  the  thing  is  a  work  or  creature, 
the  words  ^  He  made  ^  &c.  are  used  of  it  properly, 
KvpLco<;;  when  an  offspring,  then  they  are  no  longer 
used  Kvpim,^^    Orat.  ii.  §  3. 

But  the  word  has  an  inconvenient  latitude  (vid.  art. 
Father  Almigldy,  fin.)  Sometimes  it  is  used  in  the  sense 
of  archetypal  or  transcendent,  as  when  Athan.  says, 
^^The  Father  is  Kvpim  Father,  and  the  Son  Kvpico^  Son,^^ 
Orat.  i.  §  21 ;  and  in  consequence  in  Their  instance  alone 
is  the  Father  always  Father  and  the  Son  always  Son, 
ibid.  Sometimes  the  word  is  used  of  us  as  sons, 
and  opposed  to  figuratively ,  i/c  [leTa^opa^;,  as  in  Basil  c. 
Bunom.  ii.  23 ;  while  Hilary  seems  to  deny  that  we  are 
sons  proprie,  Justin  says,  6  /ulopo^  \€y6fjL€vo<;  Kvpm<;  vlb^y 
Apol.  ii.  6,  but  here  /cvptco^;  seems  to  be  used  in  reference 
to  the  word  Kvpto^;,  Lord,  which  he  has  just  been  using, 
KvptoXoyelv  being  sometimes  used  by  him  as  by  others 
in  the  sense  of  naming  as  Lord,^^  like  OeoXoyeiv,  vid. 
Tryph.  56.  There  is  a  passage  in  Justin^s  ad  Grsdc.  21, 
where  he  (or  the  anon,  writer),  when  speaking  of  iyco  el/jut 
6  a)v,  uses  the  word  in  the  same  ambiguous  sense ;  ovSei/ 
yap  ovofia  iirl  6eov  KVptoXoyelcrOac  Svvarbv  ;  as  if  Kvpto^, 


423 


the  Lord,  by  which  ^^I  am^^  is  translated,  were  a  sort 
of  symbol  of  that  proper  name  of  God  which  cannot 
be  given. 

^  On  fcvpcoXoyiaj  vid.  Lumper,  Hist.  Theol.  t.  2^ 
p.  478. 


^46709, 
Vid.  art.  Word, 


424 


Merovcria, 


MeTovaia* 

To  all  creatures  in  different  ways  or  degrees  is  it  given 
to  participate  in  the  Divine  attributes.  In  these  it  is 
that  they  are  able  or  wise  or  great  or  good ;  in  these 
they  have  life,  health,  strength,  well-being,  as  the  case 
may  be.  And  the  All-abounding  Son  is  He  through 
whom  this  exuberance  of  blessing  comes  to  them 
severally. 

They  are  partakers,  in  their  measure,  of  what  He 
possesses  in  fulness.  From  the  Father^s  ovcria,  which  is 
His  too,  they  have  through  Him  a  jxeTovaia,  Here  lies 
the  cardinal  difference  of  doctrine  between  the  Catholic 
and  Arian :  Arians  maintain  that  the  Son  has  only 
that  iierovaia  of  God,  which  we  too  have.  Catholics 
hold  Him  to  be  God,  and  the  Source  of  all  divine 
gifts.  The  antagonism  between  Athanasius  and 
Eusebius  is  the  more  pointed,  by  the  very  strength  of 
the  language  of  the  latter.  He  considers  the  Son 
avTYj^  Trj<;  7raTpLfC7](;  [not  ovo-La<;,  but]  /Jberovo-ia^;, 
ioairep  airo  7r7]yr]<;,  iir  [vid.  supr.  Eusebius^  avrov 
'7rpo')(^eofjb€V7]<^,  7r\r]povfji6vov,  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  2.  But  Atha- 
nasius, ovSe  Kara  fierovaiav  avrov ,  aXX'  oKov  lBlov  avrov 
jevvrjfjia,    Orat.  iii.  §  4. 

^  Athanasius  considers  this  attribute  of  communi- 
cation to  be  one  of  the  prerogatives  of  the  Second 
Person  in  the  Divine  Trinity.    He  enlarges  on  this 


MerovcTLa. 


425 


doctrine  in  many  places :  e.g.  if,  as  we  have  said 
before,  the  Son  is  not  such  by  participation,  but,  while 
all  things  generated  have,  by  participation,  the  grace 
of  God,  He  is  the  Father^s  Wisdom  and  Word,  of 
which  all  things  partake,  if  so,  it  follows  that  He,  as 
the  deifying  and  enlightening  power  of  the  Father,  in 
which  all  things  are  deified  and  quickened,  is  not  alien 
in  substance  from  the  Father,  but  one  in  substance. 
For  by  partaking  of  Him,  we  partake  of  the  Father; 
inasmuch  as  the  Word  is  proper  to  the  Father. 
Whence,  if  He  was  Himself  too  from  participation, 
and  not  the  substantial  Godhead  and  Image  of  the 
Father,  He  would  not  deify,  being  deified  Himself. 
For  it  is  not  possible  that  he  who  but  possesses  from 
participation,  should  impart  of  that  portion  to  others, 
since  what  he  has  is  not  his  own,  but  the  Giver^s; 
as  what  he  has  received  is  barely  the  grace  sufiicient 
for  himself.^^    Syn.  §  51. 

^  As  the  Father  has  life  in  Himself,  so  has  He  also 
given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  Himself/^  not  by 
loarticipation,  but  in  Himself.  AVhat  the  Father  gives 
to  the  Son  is  a  communication  of  Himself ;  what  He 
gives  to  His  creatures  is  a  participation.  Vid.  supr. 
Orat.  i.  §  16.  '^To  say  that  God  is  tvholly  jJctrtaJicn  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  He  hegets.'^ 


426 


MiU  ^VCTL^. 


Mia  (f)vo't<;, 

{of  our  Lord's  Godhead  and  of  Sis  Manhood), 

Two  natures  are  united  in  One  Christy  but  it  does 
not  follow  that  their  union  is  like  any  other  union  of 
which  we  have  cognisance,  such,  for  instance,  as  the 
union  of  body  and  soul.  Beyond  the  general  fact,  that 
both  the  Incarnation  and  other  unions  are  of  substances 
not  homogeneous,  there  is  no  likeness  between  it  and 
them.  The  characteristics  and  circumstances  of  the  In- 
carnation are  determined  by  its  history.  The  One  Self- 
existing  Personal  God  created,  moulded,  assumed,  a 
manhood  truly  such.  He,  being  from  eternity,  was  in 
possession  and  in  the  fulness  of  His  Godhead  before  man- 
kind had  being.  Much  more  was  He  already  in  existence, 
and  in  all  His  attributes,  when  He  became  man,  and 
He  lost  nothing  by  becoming.  All  that  He  ever  had 
continued  to  be  His;  what  He  took  on  Himself  was 
only  an  addition.  There  was  no  change ;  in  His 
Incarnation,  He  did  but  put  on  a  garment.  That 
garment  was  not  He,  or,  as  A  than,  speaks,  avro^,  or, 
as  the  next  century  worded  it,  His  Person.^^  That 
auT09  was,  as  it  had  ever  been,  one  and  the  same  with 
His  Divinity,  ovaiay  or  ^vai^ ;  it  was  this  j)vcn<;y  as  one 
with  His  Person,  which  took  to  Itself  a  manhood.  He 
had  no  other  Person  than  He  had  had  from  the  begin- 
ning ;  His  manhood  had  no  Personality  of  its  own ; 


Mia  (pvai^;. 


427 


it  was  a  second  ^vai^,  but  not  a  second  Person;  it  never 
existed  till  it  was  His ;  for  its  integrity  and  complete- 
ness it  depended  on  Him,  tlie  Divine  Word.  It  was 
one  with  Him,  and,  through  and  in  Him,  the  Divine 
Word,  it  was  one  with  the  Divine  Nature ;  it  was  but 
indirectly  united  to  It,  for  the  medium  of  union  was 
the  Person  of  the  Word.  And  thus  being  without 
personality  of  its  own.  His  human  nature  was  relatively 
to  Himself  really  what  the  Arians  falsely  said  that  His 
divinity  was  relatively  to  the  Father,  a  irepl  avrov,  a 
TrepL^oXrj,  a  o-vfi/Se^TjKo^,  a  something  else  besides  His 
substance,^^  Orat.  ii.  §  45,  e.g.  an  opyavov.  Such  was 
His  human  nature ;  it  might  be  called  an  additional 
attribute  ;  the  Word  was  made  man/^  not  was  made 
a  man. 

^  Thus  Athanasius  almost  confines  the  word  ovaia  to 
denote  the  Word,  and  seldom  speaks  of  His  manhood 
as  a  nature ;  and  Cyril,  to  denote  the  dependence 
of  the  manhood  upon  His  Divine  Nature^  has  even  used 
of  the  Incarnate  Lord  the  celebrated  dictum,  fiia 
(f)vaL<;  rov  deov  \6yov  aecrap/cco/ievrj.  This  was  Cyril's 
strong  form  of  protesting  against  Nestorianism,  which 
maintained  that  our  Lord's  humanity  had  a  person  as 
well  as  the  Divine  Word,  who  assumed  it. 

%  Athan.'s  language  is  remarkable  :  he  says,  Orat.  ii. 
§  45,  that  our  Lord  is  not  a  creature,  though  God,  in 
Prov.  viii.  22,  is  said  to  have  created  Him,  because  to  be 
a  creature,  He  ought  to  have  taken  a  created  substance, 
which  He  did  not.  Does  not  this  imply  that  ho  did 
not  consider  His  manhood  an  ova  La  or  (f)vaL<;  ?  He  says 
that  He  who  is  said  to  be  created,  is  not  at  once  in  His 


428 


Mia  (}>vai<;. 


Nature  and  Substance  a  creature  :  r/  Xe^69  tl  erepov  StjXol 
irepX  eicetvov,  fcal  ov  to  Xeyo/juevov  KTL^eaOai  7]8r]  rfj  (pvaec 
fcal  T7]  ovaia  KTLcriia*  As  the  complement  of  this 
peculiarity,  vid.  his  constant  use  of  the  ovaia  rod  \6yov, 
when  we  should  use  the  word  Person/^  Does  not 
this  corroborate  St.  Cyril  in  his  statement  that  the  say- 
ing, fjbia  j)ucrL<^  (r€aap/cco/jL6vr)'^  belongs  to  Athanasius  ? 
for  whether  we  say  one  ^ucr^?  or  one  ovo-ia  does  not 
seem  to  matter.  Observe,  too,  he  speaks  of  something 
taking  place  in  Him,  irepl  ifcetvov,  i.e.  some  adjunct  or 
accident,  (vid.  art.  irepi^oXrj  and  avfjb^€/3r}fco<;,)  or,  as  he 
says,  Orat.  ii.  §  8,  envelopment  or  dress.  In  like 
manner  he  presently,  ii.  §  46,  speaks  of  the  creation  of 
the  Word  as  like  the  new-creation  of  the  soul,  which  is 
a  creation  not  in  substance  but  in  qualities,  &c.  And 
ibid.  §  51,  he  contrasts  the  ova-la  and  the  avdpdoinvov  of 
the  Word;  as  in  Orat.  i.  41,  ovoria  and  97  dvOpoyTrorrj^ ; 
and  ^vat^  with  aap^,  iii.  34,  init. ;  and  \6yo<;  with  crapf, 
38,  init.  And  he  speaks  of  the  Son  taking  on  Him 
the  economy/'  ii.  §  76,  and  of  the  vTrocrrao-L^  rov  \6yov 
being  one  with  6  dvOpcoiro^;,  iv.  35 ;  why  does  he  not, 
instead  of  avOpo^invov,  use  the  word  ^v(ji<;  ? 

It  is  plain  that  this  line  of  teaching  might  be  wrested 
to  the  purposes  of  the  ApoUinarian  and  Eutychian 
heresies ;  but,  considering  Athan.-'s  most  emphatic 
protests  against  those  errors  in  his  later  works,  as  well 
as  his  strong  statements  in  Orat.  iii.,  there  is  no  hazard 
in  this  admission.  We  thus  understand  how  Eutyches 
came  to  deny  the  two  natures. He  said  that  such 
a  doctrine  was  a  new  one  ;  this  is  not  true,  for,  not  to 
mention  other  Fathers,  Athan.  Orat.  iv.  fin.  speaks 


Mia  (^v(Ti^, — Movap'X^La, 


429 


of  our  Lord's  invisible  nature  and  visible/^  (vid.  also 
contr.  Apoll.  ii.  11,  Orat.  ii.  70,  iii.  43,)  and  his  ordi- 
nary use  of  dv6po)7ro<;  for  the  manhood  might  quite 
as  plausibly  be  perverted  on  the  other  hand  into  a 
defence  of  Nestorianism ;  but  still  the  above  pecu- 
liarities in  his  style  may  be  taken  to  account  for  the 
heresy,  though  they  do  not  excuse  the  heretic.  Vid. 
also  the  Ed.  Ben.  on  S.  Hilary  (pr^f.  p.  xliii.),  who  uses 
natura  absolutely  for  our  Lord's  Divinity,  as  contrasted 
to  the  dispensation  and  divides  His  titles  into  naturalia 
and  assiimpta. 

^  St.  Leo  secured  at  Chalcedon  this  definition  of  the 
Two  Natures of  Christ,  instead  of  the  Alexandrian 
One  Nature  Incarnate.''    In  this  he  did  but  follow 
the  precedent  of  the  Nicene  Fathers,  who  recalled  the 
dogmatic  authority  of  the  opoovatov,  which  in  the  pre- 
ceding century  had  been  superseded  at  Antioch. 


Movap)(^La, 
Vid.  Father  Almightij. 


430 


Movo^evrj^, 


The  Arians  had  a  difficulty  as  to  tlie  meaning,  in  their 
theology,  of  the  word  fjbovoyevT]^,  Eunomius  decided 
that  it  meant,  not  /jlovo^  yevvrjBel^j  but  y6vpr]06l<;  irapa 
fjbovov.  And  of  the  first  Arians  also  Athan.  apparently 
reports  that  they  considered  the  Son  Only-begotten 
because  He  [Jbovo^  was  brought  into  being  by  God 
fiovo^.  Deer.  §  7.  The  Macrostich  Confession  in  like 
manner  interprets  /iiovoj€vrj<;  by  fjb6vo<^  and  [jlovo)^,  Syn. 
§  26,  (supr.  vol.  i.  p.  107,)  i.e.  the  only  one  of  the 
creatures  who  was  named  Son,^'  and  the  Son  of 
one  Father  (with  Eunomius  above),  in  opposition  to 
the  Trpo^oXr)  of  the  Gnostics,  (vid.  Acacius  in  Epiph. 
Haer.  p.  839.)  Naz.,  however,  explains  fjuovo)^  by  ov'x^  co? 
Ta  acofjLara.  Orat.  25.  16.  vid.  the  Eusebian  distinction 
between  6/JLoov(Tio<;  and  ofjuoiovaio^,  Soz.  iii.  18,  in  art. 
6/jLoovaLO(;  infr.  It  seems,  however,  that  Basil  and 
Gregory  Nyssen,  (if  I  understand  Petav.  rightly,  Trin. 
vii.  11,  §  3,)  consider  /juovoyevrj^;  to  include  vtto  /jlovoVj  as  if 
in  contrast  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  procession  is  not 
from  the  Father  only,  or  again  not  a  gennesis. 

^  If  it  be  asked,  what  the  distinctive  words  are 
which  are  incommunicably  the  Son^s^  since  so  many  of 
His  names  are  given  also  to  the  creature,  it  is  obvious 
to  answer,  '/Sto?  vlo<;  and  /jbovoyevrjf;^  which  are  in 
Scripture,  and  the  symbols     of  the  substance,^^  and 


Movoy€V7]<;, 


431 


*^one  in  substance/^  used  by  the  Council;  and  this  is  the 
value  of  the  CounciPs  phrases,  that,  while  they  guard 
the  Son^s  divinity,  they  allow  full  scope,  without  risk 
of  trenching  on  it,  to  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
fulness  of  the  Christian  privileges,  vid.  art.  Son. 
For  ^AyaTTyro^;,  vid.  Matt.  iii.  in  Scripture  Passages, 


432 


THE 


The  ''OjjLOLov. 

God  is  both  One  and  Three  :  neither  as  One  nor  as 
Three  can  we  speak  of  likeness  in  connection  with 
Him;  for  likeness,  as  Athan.  says,  relates  not  to 
things  but  to  their  qualities,  and  to  speak  of  likeness 
between  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  is  to  imply  that 
instead  of  being  One  and  the  Same,  They  are  three 
distinct  beings.  Again,  so  far  as  They  are  three.  They 
do  but  differ  from  each  other,  and  are  not  merely 
unlike ;  They  are  like  in  nothing,  viewed  as  Persons ; 
They  have  not  so  much  likeness  as  to  admit  (in  the 
ordinary  sense)  of  numbering.  Those  things,  strictly 
speaking,  alone  are  like  or  equal  which  are  not  the 
same  :  the  Three  Divine  Persons  are  not  like  Each 
Other,  whether  viewed  as  Three  or  One. 

However,  in  the  difficulty  of  finding  terms,  which 
will  serve  as  a  common  measure  of  theological  thought 
for  the  expression  of  ideas  as  to  which  there  is  no 
experimental  knowledge  or  power  of  conception,  and 
in  the  necessary  use  of  economical  language,  both 
these  terms,  likeness  and  equality,  have  been  received 
in  orthodox  teaching  concerning  the  Supreme  Being. 
The  Athanasian  Creed  declares  that  the  Three  Persons 
in   the   Godhead   have      aequalis   gloria,^^  and  are 

co-sequales,^^  and  S.  Athanasius  himself  in  various 
places  uses  the  word     like,^^  though  he  condemns  its 


THE  '^OflOLOV, 


433 


adoption  in  the  mouth  of  Arians^  as  being  insufficient 
to  exclude  error. 

That  is^  he  accepts  it  as  a  word  of  orthodoxy  as  far 
as  it  goes,  while  he  rejects  it  as  sufficient  to  serve  as 
a  symbol  and  test.  Sufficient  it  is  not^  even  with  the 
strong  additions^  which  the  Semi- Arians  made,  of  o/juoto^ 
Kara  Trdvra,  ouoio^  tear  ovalav  or  ofioLovaio^;,  and 
cnrapdWafCTo^  el/ccov,  because  what  is  like,  is,  by  the 
very  force  of  the  term,  not  equivalent  to  the  same. 
Thus  he  says^  Syn.  §  41  and  53^  Only  to  say  ^  Like 
according  to  substance/  is  very  far  from  signifying  ^  Of 
the  substance  ^  (vid.  art.  Eiisebiics)  ;  thus  tin  is  only 
like  silver,  and  gilt  brass  like  gold.  .  .  No  one  disputes 
that  like  is  not  predicated  of  substances,  but  of  habits 
and  of  qualities.  Therefore  in  speaking  of  Like  in  sub- 
stance, we  mean  Like  by  participation^  fcara  ixeTovaiaVj 
and  this  belongs  to  creatures,  for  they,  by  partaking,  are 
made  like  to  God  .  .  .  not  in  substance,  but  in  sonship, 
which  we  shall  partake  from  Him.  ...  If  then  ye  speak 
of  the  Son  as  being  such  by  participation,  then  indeed 
call  Him  like  God  in  substance  and  not  in  nature  God, 
.  .  .  but  if  this  be  extravagant.  He  must  be,  not  by  par- 
ticipation, but  in  nature  and  truth,  Son,  Light,  Wisdom, 
God;  and  being  so  by  nature  and  not  by  sharing,  there- 
fore He  is  properly  called,  not  Like  in  substance  with 
the  Father,  but  One  in  substance,^^ — that  is,  not 
6fioLovcrLo<;,  but  6/jLoovaLo<;,  Consubstantial. 

Yet  clear  and  decided  as  is  his  language  here,  never- 
theless, for  some  reason  (probably  from  a  feeling  of 
charity,  as  judging  it  best  to  inculcate  first  the  revealed 
truth  itself  as  a  mode  of  introducing  to  the  faithful 

VOL.  II.  E  e 


434 


THE  ^'OjJLOLOV, 


and  defending  the  orthodox  symbol,  and  showing  its 
meaning  and  its  necessity,)  he  uses  the  phrases  o/^lolo^ 
Kara  Trdvra,  and  o/ulolovctlo^  more  commonly  than 
6/jLoov(TLO(; :  this  I  have  noted  elsewhere. 

%  E.g.  oiJLOLo<^  Kara  Trdvra.  He  who  is  in  the 
Father,  and  like  the  Father  in  all  things.^^  Orat. 
i.  §  40.  Being  the  Son  of  God,  He  must  be  like 
Him.''  Orat.  ii.  §  17.  The  Word  is  unlike  us,  and 
like  the  Father.''  Orat.  iii.  §  20 ;  also  i.  §  21,  40 ;  ii.  §  18, 
22.   Ep.  iEgypt.  17. 

^  And  o/>to609  Kar  ovo-iav,  .  .  Unless  indeed  they 
give  up  shame,  and  say  that  ^  Image '  is  not  a  token 
of  similar  substance,  but  His  name  only."  Orat.  i. 
§21.  Vid.  also  Orat.  i.  §  20  init.  26;  iii.  §  11,  26,  67. 
Syn.  §  38.    Alex.  Enc.  §  2. 

^  Also  Athan.  says  that  the  Holy  Trias  is  o/jLoca 
iavrfj,  instead  of  using  the  word  o/jboovata.  Scrap,  i.  17, 
20,  38;  also  Cyril.  Catech.  vi.  7. 

%  In  some  of  the  Arian  Creeds  we  have  this  almost 
Catholic  formula,  ofjuotov  Kara  iravra,  introduced  by  the 
bye,  marking  the  presence  of  what  may  be  called  the 
new  Semi- Arian  school.  Of  course  it  might  admit  of 
evasion,  but  in  its  fulness  it  included  substance." 
At  Sirmium  Oonstantius  inserted  the  above  (Epiph. 
Hser.  73,  22)  in  the  Confession  which  occurs  supr. 
vol.  i.  p.  72.  On  this  occasion  Basil  subscribed  in  this 
form :  ^'  I,  Basil,  Bishop  of  Ancyra,  believe  and 
assent  to  what  is  aforewritten,  confessing  that  the  Son 
is  like  the  Father  in  all  things ;  and  by  ^  in  all  things,' 
not  only  that  He  is  like  in  will,  but  in  subsistence,  and 
existence,  and  being ;   as  divine  Scripture  teaches. 


THE  '^OubOLOV, 


435 


spirit  from  spirit^  life  from  life^  liglit  from  light,  God 
from  God,  true  Son  from  true,  Wisdom  from  the  Wise 
God  and  Father;  and  once  for  all,  like  the  Father  in 
all  things,  as  a  son  is  to  a  father.  And  if  any  one 
says  that  He  is  like  in  a  certain  respect,  Kara  ruy  as  is 
written  afore,  he  is  alien  from  the  Catholic  Chui-ch,  as 
not  confessing  the  likeness  according  to  divine 
Scripture/^  Bpiph.  Hser.  73,  22.  8.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem 
uses  the  Kara  Trdvra  or  ev  iraaiv  ofiotov,  Catech.  iv.  7 ; 
xi.  4  and  IS ;  and  Damasc.  F.  0.  i.  8,  p.  135. 

^  S.  Athanasius,  in  saying  that  like  is  not  used  of 
substance,  implies  that  the  common  Arian  senses  of 
o/jbotov  are  more  natural,  and  therefore  the  more  pro- 
bable, and  therefore  also  the  less  admissible  by  Catholics, 
if  the  word  came  into  use.  These  were,  1.  likeness  in 
will  and  action,  as  cru/jL(f)0)PLa,  of  which  vid.  Orat.  iii.  11. 
2.  likeness  to  the  idea  in  God's  mind  in  which  the  Son 
was  created.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  p.  134.  3.  likeness  to  the 
divine  act  or  enerrjij  by  which  He  was  created.  Basil, 
contr.  Eun.  iv.  p.  282.  Cyril,  in  Joan.  c.  5.  iii.  p.  304. 
4.  like  according  to  the  Scriptures,  which  of  course  was 
but  an  evasion.  5.  like  Kara  irdvra,  which  was,  as 
they  understood  it,  an  evasion  also. 

^  According  to  Athanasius,  supr.  p.  371,  the  phrase 

unvarying  image  was,  in  truth,  self-contradictory, 
for  every  image  varies  from  the  original  because  it  is 
an  image.  Still  he  himself  frequently  uses  it,  as  other 
Fathers,  and  Orat.  i.  §  2G,  uses  ofMoto^;  rrj?  ovaia^, 

^  As  of  the  substance declared  that  our  Lord 
was  uncrcate,  so  one  in  substance  declared  that  He 
was  cqiud  with  the  Father;  no  term  derived  from 

E  e  2 


436 


THE  "OfJiOlOV, 


likeness/^  even  ^^like  in  substance/^  answering  for 
this  purpose,  for  such  phrases  might  all  be  understood 
of  resemblance  or  representation,  vid.  Deer.  §  23^ 
Hyp.  Mel.  and  Hil.  Syn.  89.  Things  that  are  like  can- 
not be  the  same;  whereas  Athan.  contends  for  the 
ravTov  rfi  ofjuoLcoaeL,  the  same  in  likeness,  Deer.  §  20. 

Una  substantia  religiose  prasdicabitur,  quae  ex 
nativitatis  proprietate  et  ex  naturae  similitudine  ita 
indiiBFerens  sit.  ut  una  dicatur.''^    Hil.  Syn.  §  67. 

^  By  the  Son  being  equal  to  the  Father/^  is  but 
meant  that  He  is  His  unvarying  image  it  does 
not  imply  any  distinction  of  substance.  Perfectas 
aequalitatis  significantiam  habet  similitudo."'^  Hil.  de 
Syn.  73.  But  though  He  is  in  all  things  the  Father's 
Image,  this  implies  some  exception^  for  else  He  would 
not  be  an  Image^  merely  like  or  equal,  as  I  said  just 
now,  but  the  same.  ^^Non  est  aequalitas  in  dissimilibus, 
nec  similitude  est  intra  unum.''^  ibid.  72.  Hence  He 
is  the  Father^s  image  in  all  things  except  in  being  the 
Father,  eltccov  ^vaiicrj  fcal  a7rapdWafCT0<^  Kara  irdvra 
ofjbOLa  TM  nraTpl,  ifKr]V  rrj^;  dyevvrjcrla^:;  koX  ttj^  Trarporyro^. 
Damasc.  de  Imag.  iii.  18,  p.  354.  vid.  also  Basil  contr. 
Eun.  ii.  28.  Theod.  Inconfus.  p.  91.  Basil.  Ep.  38,  7  fin. 
For  the  Son  is  the  Image  of  the  Father,  not  as  Father, 
but  as  God.  The  Arians  on  the  other  hand,  objecting 
to  the  phrase  unvarying  image,^^  asked  why  the  Son 
was  not  in  consequence  a  Father,  and  the  beginning  of 
a  Oeoyovca.  vid.  Athan.  Orat.  i.  §  14,  21.  Eunom.  in 
Cyril.  Thes.  pp.  22,  23. 

%  The  characteristic  of  Arianism  in  all  its  shapes 
was  the  absolute  separation  of  Father  from  Son.  It 


THE  '^OfjLOLOV. 


437 


considered  Them  as  two  ovaiai,  like  perhaps^  but  not 
really  one ;  this  was  their  version  of  the  phrase  rekeio^; 
CK  T€\€Lov,  Semi-Arians  here  agreed  with  Arians. 
When  the  Semi-Arians  came  nearest  to  orthodoxy  in 
words^  it  was  the  Trepcx^copi^cnf;  that  was  the  test  whether 
they  fell  short  in  words  aloae^  or  iu  their  theological 
view. 


438 


^0/jLoovaio<;, 


'0/JLoovato<;, 

The  term  6fjLoov(no<;,  one  in  siibstance  or  consuhstantial, 
was  accepted  as  a  symbol^  for  securing  the  doctrine  of 
our  Lord^s  divinity,  first  by  the  infallible  authority  of 
the  Nicene  Council,  and  next  by  the  experimental 
assent  and  consent  of  Christendom,  wrought  out  in  its 
behalf  by  the  events  of  the  prolonged  Arian  contro- 
versy. 

It  had  had  the  mischance  in  the  previous  century  of 
being  used  by  heretics  in  their  own  sense,  and  of  in- 
curring more  or  less  of  suspicion  and  dislike  from  the 
Fathers  in  the  great  Council  of  Antioch,  a.d.  264 — 272, 
though  it  had  been  already  in  use  in  the  Alexandrian 
Church  j  but,  when  the  momentous  point  in  dispute,  the 
divinity  of  the  Son,  was  once  thoroughly  discussed  and 
understood,  it  was  forced  upon  the  mind  of  theologians 
that  the  reception  or  rejection  of  this  term  was  the 
difi'erence  between  Catholic  truth  and  Arianism. 

%  We  were  aware,^^  says  Eusebius  to  his  people, 
that,  even  among  the  ancients,  some  learned  and 
illustrious  Bishops  and  writers  have  used  the  term 
^one  in  substance,^  in  their  theological  teaching  con- 
cerning the  Father  and  Son/^  And  Athanasius  in  like 
manner,  ad  Afros  6,  speaks  of  *^  testimony  of  ancient 
Bishops  about  130  years  since  and  in  de  Syn.  §  43, 
of    long  before    the  Council  of  Antioch.  Tertullian, 


'0/jLoov(Tlo<;, 


439 


Prax.  13  fin.,  has  the  translation  unius  substantias/^ 
as  he  also  has  de  substantia  Patris/^  in  Prax.  4; 
and  Origen  perhaps  used  the  word,  vid.  Pamph.  Apol. 
5,  and  Theognostus  and  the  two  Dionysius^s,  Deer. 
§  25,  26.  And  before  them  Clement  had  spoken  of 
the  evwai^  rrj^  iJbovahiK:r)<^  ohaia^;,  the  union  of  the 
single  substance,^^  vid.  Le  Quien  in  Damasc.  Fid.  Orth. 

i.  8.  Novatian  too  has  ^^per  substantias  communionem/^ 
de  Trin.  31.    Vid.  Athan.  ad  Afros  5,  6;  ad  Serap. 

ii.  5.  S.  Ambrose  tells  us,  that  a  Letter  written  by 
Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  in  which  he  said,  If  we  call 
Him  true  Son  of  the  Father  and  uncreate,  then  are  we 
granting  that  He  is  one  in  substance,  o/jloovo-lov,'^  de- 
termined the  Council  on  the  adoption  of  the  term,  de 
Fid.  iii.  n.  125.  He  had  disclaimed  ^^of  the  substance,^^ 
in  his  Letter  to  Paulinus.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  4.  Arius, 
however,  had  disclaimed  ofMoovcrtop  already,  Epiph. 
Haer.  69,  7,  and  again  in  the  Thalia.  Gibbon^s  un- 
tenable assertion  has  been  already  observed  upon  (vid. 
Nicene  Tests)  supr.,  viz.,  that  the  Council  was  at  a  loss  for 
a  test,  and  that  on  Eusebius^s  ^^ingenuously  confessing 
that  his  G/jLoovaLo<;  was  incompatible  with  the  principles 
of  [his]  theological  system,  the  fortunate  oiiportunity 
was  eagerly  embraced  by  the  Bishops/^  as  if  they  were 
bent  at  all  hazards,  and  without  reference  to  tlie  real 
and  substantial  agreement  or  disagreement  of  them- 
selves Jind  the  Arians,  to  find  some  word  which  might 
accidentally  serve  to  exclude  the  latter  from  com- 
munion. 

^  When  the  Semi- Arians  objected  that  the  Council 
of  Antioch,  264 — 272,  determined  that  the  Son  is  not 


440 


'0/jboovaLO<^. 


consubsfcantial  with  the  Father^  de  Syn.  supr.  49 — 52, 
Athan.  answered  in  explanation  that  Paul  of  Samo- 
sata  took  the  word  in  a  material  sense^  as  indeed 
Ariiis  did^  calling  it  the  doctrine  of  Manes  and  Hiera- 
cas.  S.  Easily  contr.  Eunom.  i.  19^  agrees  with  Athan., 
but  S.  Hilary  on  the  contrary  reports  that  Paul  him- 
self accepted  it,  i.e.  in  a  Sabellian  sense,  and  therefore 
the  Council  rejected  it.  "  Male  homoiision  Samo- 
satenus  confessus  est,  sed  numquid  melius  Arii  nega- 
verunt  ?  de  Syn.  86.  Doubtless,  however,  both  reasons 
told  in  causing  its  rejection.  But  Montfaucon  and 
Bull  consider  it  a  difficulty.  Hence,  it  would  seem,  the 
former,  in  his  Nova  Gollectio,  t.  ii,  p.  19,  renders  ovkovv 
by  ergo  non  ;  he  had  not  inserted  non  in  his  edition  of 
Athanasius. 

^  The  objections  made  to  the  word  o/jLoova-tov  were,  1. 
that  it  was  not  in  Scripture ;  2.  that  it  had  been  dis- 
owned by  the  Antiochene  Council  against  Paul  of 
Samosata ;  3.  that  it  was  of  a  material  nature,  and  be- 
longed to  the  Manichees ;  4.  or  else  that  it  was  of  a 
Sabellian  tendency;  5.  that  it  implied  that  the  divine 
substance  was  distinct  from  God. 

^  The  Eusebians  tried  to  establish  a  distinction  be- 
tween o/jloovctlov  and  o/jlolovo-lov,  one  in  substance 
and  like  in  substance,^^  of  this  sort  :  that  the  former 
belonged  to  things  material,  and  the  latter  to  imma- 
terial, Soz.  iii.  18,  a  remark  which  in  itself  was  quite 
sufficient  to  justify  the  Catholics  in  insisting  on  the 
former  term.  For  the  heretical  party,  starting  with  the 
notion  in  which  their  heresy  in  all  its  shades  consisted, 
that  the  Son  was  a  distinct  being  from  the  Father, 


^O/jbOOVCTLO^. 


441 


and  appealing  to  a  doctrine  which  might  be  plausibly 
maintained,  that  spirits  are  incommensurable  with  one 
another,  or  that  each  is  at  most  not  more  than  sui 
similis,  concluded  that  ^^Uke  in  substance  was  the 
only  term  which  would  express  the  relation  of  the  Son 
to  the  Father.  Here  then  the  word  one  in  sub- 
stance^' did  just  enable  the  Catholics  to  join  issue 
with  them,  as  exactly  expressing  what  Catholics 
wished  to  express,  viz.  that  there  was  no  such 
distinction  between  Them  as  made  the  term  ^Hike^' 
necessary,  or  even  possible,  but  that  Their  relation 
to  Each  Other  v/as  analogous  to  that  of  a  material 
offspring  to  a  material  parent,  or  that,  as  material 
parent  and  offspring  are  individuals  under  one 
existing  correlation,  so  the  Eternal  Father  and 
Son  are  Persons  under  one  common  individual 
substance. 

The  East,''  says  Sozomen,  in  spite  of  its  being 
in  dissension  after  the  Antiochene  Council "  of  the  De- 
dication, "  and  thenceforth  openly  dissenting  from 
the  Nicene  faith,  in  reality,  I  think,  concurred  in 
the  sentiment  of  the  majority,  and  with  them  con- 
fessed the  Son  to  be  of  the  Father's  substance; 
but  from  contentiousness  certain  of  them  fought 
against  the  term  ^  One  in  substance ; '  some,  as  I 
conjecture,  having  originally  objected  to  the  word 
.  •  .  others  from  habit  .  .  .  others,  aware  that  the 
resistance  was  unsuitable,  leaned  to  this  side  or  that  to 
gratify  parties  ;  and  many  thought  it  weak  to  waste 
themselves  in  such  strife  of  words,  and  peaceably  held 
to  the  Nicene  decision."  Hist.  iii.  13. 


442 


^0/JLOOV(TLO<;* 


Atlian.  is  very  reserved  in  his  use  of  the  word 
ofioovaLov  in  these  three  Orations.  Indeed  I  do  not 
recollect  his  using  it  but  once^  Orat.  i.  §  9^  and  that 
in  what  is  almost  a  confession  of  faith.  Instead  he 
uses  ofioLO<;  Kara  iravra,  ofioLo<;  kwt  ovaiav,  6fjiO(j)vrj<;y 
&c. 


443 


^Ovofiara, 

The  various  titles  of  the  Second  Divine  Person  are 
at  once  equivalent  and  complementary  to  each  other. 
Son^  Word,  Image,  all  imply  relation,  and  suggest  and 
teach  that  attribute  of  supereffluence  which  is  one  of 
the  perfections  of  the  Divine  Being,  (vid.  Father 
Almiglitij .) 

The  Son  of  God,  as  may  be  learnt  from  the  divine 
oracles  themselves,  is  Himself  the  Word  of  God,  and 
the  Wisdom,  and  the  Image,  and  the  Hand,  and  the 
Power;  for  God^s  Offspring  is  one,  and  of  the  genera- 
tion from  the  Father  these  titles  are  tokens.  For  if 
you  say  the  Son,  you  have  declared  what  is  from  the 
Father  by  nature  ;  and  if  you  imagine  the  Word,  you 
are  thinking  again  of  what  is  from  Him,  and  what  is  in- 
separable ;  and,  speaking  of  Wisdom,  again  you  mean 
nothing  less,  what  is  not  from  without,  bat  from  Him 
and  in  Him  ;  and  if  you  name  the  Power  and  the  Hand, 
again  you  speak  of  what  is  proper  to  substance  ;  and, 
speaking  of  the  Image,  you  signify  the  Son  ;  for  what 
else  is  like  God  but  the  Offspring  from  Him  ?  Doubt- 
less the  things  which  came  to  be  through  fJte  Word, 
these  nxe  founded  in  Wisdom;  and  what  are  laid  in 
Wisdom,  these  are  all  made  by  the  Hand,  and  came  to 
be  through  the  Son.'^  Deer.  §  17. 

IT  As  Sonship  is  implied  in     Image     (art.  Son),  so  it 


444 


^Ovofjiara* 


is  implied  in    Word^^  and    Wisdom/^    For  instance, 

Especially  is  it  absurd  to  name  the  Word,  yet  deny 
Him  to  be  Son,  for,  if  tlie  Word  be  not  from  God, 
reasonably  might  they  deny  Him  to  be  Son ;  but  if  He 
is  from  God,  how  see  they  not  that  what  exists  from 
anything  is  son  of  him  from  whom  it  is  ?  Orat.  iv. 
15.  Again,  del  deo^  rjv  koX  vl6<;  iart,  X6709  cov.  Orat. 
iii.  29  init.  Tt9  ^  0  X6709  ;  de  Deer.  17.   And  still 

more  pointedly,  el  fxy  vlb^,  ovSe  X0709,  Orat.  iv.  24  fin. 
And  so  Image  is  implied  in  Sonship  :  being  Son 
of  God,  He  must  be  like  Him,^^  ii.  §  17.  It  is  implied 
in  Word  :  iv  rrj  Ihia  el/covi,  rjTt<^  iarlv  6  \6yo<;  avrov. 
§  82,  also  34  fin.  On  the  contrary,  the  very  root 
of  heretical  error  was  the  denial  that  these  titles  im- 
plied each  other. 

^  All  the  titles  of  the  Son  of  God  are  consistent 
with  each  other,  and  variously  represent  one  and  the 
same  Person.  Son  and  Word  denote  His  de- 
rivation ;  Word  and  Image,^^  His  Likeness ; 
*^Word^^  and  Wisdom,"  His  immateriality ;  Wis- 
dom" and  ^^Hand,"  His  co-existence.  ^^Whatelseis 
Like  God,  but  His  Offspring  from  Him?"  de  Deer.  §  17. 

If  He  is  not  Son,  neither  is  He  Image."  Orat.  ii. 
§  2.  How  is  there  Word  and  Wisdom,  unless  there 
be  a  proper  Offspring  of  His  substance  ?  "  ii.  §  22.  vid. 
also  Orat.  i.  §  20,  21,  and  at  great  length  Orat.  iv. 
§  20,  &c.  vid.  also  Naz.  Orat.  30.  20.  Basil,  contr. 
Eunom.  i.  18.  Hilar,  de  Trin.  vii.  11.  August,  in 
Joann.  xlviii.  6,  and  in  Psalm.  44,  (45,)  5. 

IF  It  is  sometimes  erroneously  supposed  that  such 
illustrations  as  these  are  intended  to  explain  how  the 


^Opo/jcara. 


445 


Sacred  Mystery  in  question  is  possible,  whereas  they 
are  merely  intended  to  show  that  the  words  we  use 
concerning  it  are  not  self  -  contradict  or  ij ,  which  is  the 
objection  moit  commonly  brought  against  them.  To 
say  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Son^s  generation  does  not 
trench  upon  the  Father's  perfection  and  immutability^  or 
negative  the  Son^s  eternity,  seems  at  first  sight  incon- 
sistent with  what  the  words  Father  and  Son  mean,  till 
another  image  is  adduced,  such  as  the  sun  and  radiance, 
in  which  that  alleged  inconsistency  can  be  conceived 
to  exist  in  fact.  Here  one  image  corrects  another ; 
and  the  accumulation  of  images  is  not,  as  is  often 
thought,  the  restless  and  fruitless  eflFort  of  the  mind  to 
enter  into  the  Mystery ,  but  is  a  safeguard  against  any 
one  image,  nay,  any  collection  of  images,  being  sup- 
posed adequate.  If  it  be  said  that  the  language  used 
concerning  the  sun  and  its  radiance  is  but  popular,  not 
philosophical,  so  again  the  Catholic  language  concern- 
ing the  Holy  Trinity  may,  nay,  must  be  economical, 
not  exact,  conveying  the  truth,  not  in  the  tongues 
of  angels,  but  under  human  modes  of  thought  and 
speech,  vid.  supr.  articles  Illustrations ^  p.  174,  and 
Economical  Language,  p.  94. 

^  It  is  usual  with  the  Fathers  to  use  the  two  terms 
^^Son^^  and  ^^Word^^  to  guard  and  complete  the  or- 
dinary sense  of  each  other.  Their  doctrine  is  that  our 
Lord  is  both,  in  a  certain  transcendent,  prototypical, 
and  singular  sense ;  that  in  that  high  sense  they  are 
coincident  with  one  another ;  tliat  they  are  applied  to 
human  things  by  an  accommodation,  as  far  as  these 
are  shadows  of  Him  to  whom  properly  they  really 


446 


belong ;  that,  being  but  partially  realised  on  earth,  the 
ideas  gained  from  the  earthly  types  are  but  imperfect ; 
that  in  consequence,  if  any  one  of  them  is  used  exclu- 
sively of  Him,  it  tends  to  introduce  wrong  ideas  re- 
specting Him  ;  but  that  their  respective  imperfections, 
as  lying  on  different  sides,  when  used  together  correct 
each  other.  The  term  Son,  used  by  itself,  was  abused 
into  Arianism,  and  the  term  Word  into  Sabellianism ; 
the  term  Son  might  be  accused  of  introducing  material 
notions,  and  the  term  Word  of  suggesting  imperfection 
and  transitoriness.    Bach  of  them  corrected  the  other. 

Scripture,^''  says  Athan.,  joining  the  two,  has  said 
^  Son,^  that  the  natural  and  true  Offspring  of  the  Sub- 
stance may  be  preached ;  but,  that  no  one  may  under- 
stand a  human  offspring,  therefore,  signifying  His 
substance  a  second  time,  it  calls  Him  Word,  and 
Wisdom,  and  Radiance.''^    Orat.  i.  §  28. 

Vid.  also  iv.  §  8.  Euseb.  contr.  Marc.  ii.  4,  p.  54. 
Isid.  Pel.  Ep.  iv.  141.  So  S.  Cyril  says  that  we 
learn  from  His  being  called  Son  that  He  is  from 
Him,  TO  avTov ;  from  His  being  called  Wisdom  and 
Word,  that  He  is  in  Him/^  to  iv  avrco,  Thesaur.  iv. 
p.  31.  However,  S.  Athanasius  observes,  that  pro- 
perly speaking  the  one  term  implies  the  other,  i.e.  in 
its  fulness.  Since  the  Son^s  Being  is  from  the  Father, 
therefore  It  is  in  the  Father.''  Orat.  iii.  §  3.  ^^f 
not  Son,  not  Word  either ;  and  if  not  Word,  not  Son. 
For  what  is  from  the  Father  is  Son ;  and  what  is  from 
the  Father,  but  the  Word  ? &c.  Orat.  iv.  §  24  fin. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  heretics  accused  Catholics  of 
inconsistency,  or  of  a  union  of  opposite  errors,  because 


Ovofiara. 


447 


they  accepted  all  the  Scripture  images  together.  But 
Vigilius  of  Thapsus  says^  that  error  bears  testimony 
to  truth,  and  the  discordant  opinions  of  misbelievers 
blend  into  concordance  in  the  rule  of  orthodoxy/^  contr. 
Eutych.  ii.  init.  Grande  miraculum,  ut  expugnatione 
sui  Veritas  confirmetur/^  ibid.  3.  vid.  also  i.  init.  and 
Eulogius,  ap.  Phot.  225,  p.  759. 

%  Every  illustration,  as  being  incomplete  on  one  or 
other  side  of  it,  taken  by  itself,  tends  to  heresy.  The 
title  Son  by  itself  suggests  a  second  God,  as  the  title 
Word  a  mere  attribute,  and  the  title  Minister  a  crea- 
ture. All  heresies  are  partial  views  of  the  truth,  and 
are  wrong,  not  so  much  in  what  they  say,  as  in  what 
they  deny.  The  truth,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  positive 
and  comprehensive  doctrine,  and  in  consequence  neces- 
sarily mysterious  and  open  to  misconception.  When 
Athan.  implies  that  the  Eternal  Father  is  in  the  Son, 
though  remaining  what  He  is,  as  a  man  is  in  his  child, 
he  is  intent  only  upon  the  point  of  the  Son*s  con- 
naturality  and  co-equality,  which  the  Arians  denied.  In 
like  manner  he  says  in  a  later  Discourse,  In  the  Son 
the  Father^s  Godhead  is  beheld.  The  Emperor^s 
countenance  and  form  are  in  his  image,  and  the 
countenance  of  his  image  is  in  the  Emperor.  For  the 
Emperor^s  likeness  in  his  image  is  a  definitive  likeness, 
aTTapdWaicTO^,  so  that  he  who  looks  upon  the  image, 
in  it  sees  the  Emperor,  and  again  he  who  sees  the 
Emperor  recognises  that  he  is  in  the  image.  The 
image  then  might  say,  ^  I  and  the  Emperor  are  one.^ 
Orat.  iii.  §  5.    And  thus  the  Auctor  de  Trin.  refers  to 

Peter,  Paul,  and  Timothy  having  three  subsistencies 


448 


^Ovo/Jbara, 


and  one  humanity/^  i.  p.  918.  S.  Cyril  even  seems  to 
deny  that  each  individual  man  may  be  considered  a 
separate  substance,  except  as  the  Three  Persons  are 
such,  Dial.  i.  p.  409 ;  and  S.  Gregory  Nyssen  is  led.  to 
say  that,  strictly  speaking,  the  abstract  man,  which  is 
predicated  of  separate  individuals,  is  still  one,  and  this 
with  a  view  of  illustrating  the  Divine  Unity,  ad  Ablab. 
t.  2,  p.  449.   vid.  Petav.  de  Trin.  iv.  9. 

^  The  title  Word^^  implies  the  ineffable  mode  of 
the  Son^s  generation,  as  distinct  from  material  parallels, 
vid.  Gregory  Nyssen,  contr.  Eunom.  iii.  p.  107.  Ohry- 
sostom  in  Joan.  Hom.  2,  §  4.  Cyril  Alex.  Thesaur.  5, 
p.  37.  Also  it  implies  that  there  is  but  One  Son.  vid. 
Orat.  i.  §  16.  As  the  Origin  is  one  substance,  so  its 
Word  and  Wisdom  are  one,  substantial  and  subsisting."'^ 
Athan.  Orat.  iv.  1  fin. 

^  Vid.  passim.  All  these  titles,  Word,  Wisdom, 
Light,^^  &c.,  serve  to  guard  the  title  ^^Son^'  from 
any  notions  of  parts  or  dimensions,  e.g.  He  is  not 
composed  of  parts,  but  being  impassible  and  single, 
He  is  impassibly  and  indivisibly  Father  of  the  Son  .  .  . 
for  .  .  .  the  Word  and  Wisdom  is  neither  creature,  nor 
part  of  Him  whose  Word  He  is,  nor  an  offspring 
passibly  begotten.''^    Orat.  i.  §  28. 

^  As  the  Arians  took  the  title  Son  in  that  part  of 
its  earthly  sense  in  which  it  did  not  apply  to  our  Lord, 
so  they  misinterpreted  the  title  Word  also ;  which  de- 
noted the  Son^s  immateriality  and  indivisible  presence 
in  the  Father,  but  did  not  express  His  perfection,  vid. 
Orat.  ii.  §  34—36.  ^^As  our  word  belongs  to  us  and 
is  from  us,  and  not  a  work  external  to  us,  so  also  the 


^Ovofiara* 


449 


Word  of  God  is  proper  to  Him  and  from  Him^  and  is 
not  made,  yet  not  as  the  icord  of  man,  else  one  must 
consider  God  as  man.  Men  have  many  words/^  &c. 
Orat.  ii.  §  36.  vid.  art.  Word, 

^  The  name  of  Image  was  of  great  importance  in 
correcting  heterodox  opinions  as  to  the  words  Son  and 
Word,  which  were  propagated  in  the  Ante-Nicene 
times,  and  in  keeping  their  economical  sense  in  the 
right  direction.  A  son  who  had  a  beginning,  and  a 
word  which  was  spoken  and  over,  were  in  no  sense  an 
Image  ^'  of  the  Eternal  and  All-perfect  God. 


VOL.  II. 


450 


"Opyavov. 


"OpyavoV) 

Instrument.  This  word^  which  is  rightly  used  of  our 
Lord^s  manhood  relatively  to  His  Divine  Person 
{rovTcp  j(^p(£>iJbevo<^  opydpcOy  Orat.  iii.  §  31^  and  op^yavov 
7rpo<^  TTjv  ivepyeiav  koX  rrjv  etckajjuy^nv  tt}^  OeorrjTo^,  53), 
is  simply  heretical  if  taken  to  express  the  relation  of 
His  Divine  Person  towards  His  Father.  In  the  latter  re- 
lation the  term  is  inapplicable^  unless  He  was  different 
from  the  Father  in  nature  and  substance/^  Deer.  §  23. 
vid.  Basil,  de  Sp.  S.  19  fin.  In  this  Arians,  Socr.  i.  6^ 
Eusebius^  Eccl.  Theol.  i.  8,  and  Anomoeans  would  agree. 
At  the  same  time,  doubtless,  some  early  writers  use  it 
of  our  Lord^s  Divine  Nature,  though  not  in  a  heretical 
sense,  vid.  art.  Mediation. 

%  As  it  was  abused  by  the  Arians  to  mean  a  servant 
or  vTTovpyo^,  as  if  our  Lord  was  a  mere  creature,  so  it 
was  afterwards  used  heretically  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Incarnation  by  the  Apollinarians,  who  looked  on  our 
Lord's  manhood  as  merely  a  manifestation  of  God. 
vid.  KaTairkraafJia*  Thus  a')(i]jULa  opyavt/cov  in  Athan.  in 
Apol.  i.  2,  15,  also  a  parallel  in  Euseb.  Laud.  Const.  13, 
p.  536.  However,  it  is  used  freely  even  by  Athan., 
e.g.  Orat.  iii.  31,  53,  as  above,  and  Incarn.  8,  9,  43,  44. 
And  he  uses  the  words  7rpo<;  (pavepcocnv  koX  yvcocnv,  41 
fin.,  but  he  also  insists  upon  our  Lord^s  coming  being 
not  merely  for  manifestation,  else  He  might  have  come 


"Opyavov. 


in  a  higher  nature,  ibid.  8.  vid.  also  44.  It  may  be  added 
that  (}>av€pco(n^  is  a  Nestorian  as  well  as  Eutychian 
idea;  vid.  Orat.  iii.  §  30,  Facund.  Tr.  Cap.  ix.  2,  3, 
and  the  Syrian  use  of  parsopa,  Asseman.  Bibl.  Orient, 
t.  4} J  p.  219.  Thus  both  parties  really  denied  the 
Atonement. 


F  f  2 


452 


What  is  strange  to  ears  accustomed  to  Protestant 
modes  of  arguing,  S.  Athanasius  does  not  simply  ex- 
pound Scripture,  rather  he  vindicates  it  from  the 
imputation  of  its  teaching  any  but  true  doctrine.  It  is 
ever  6p66^,  he  says,  that  is,  orthodox ;  I  mean,  he  takes 
it  for  granted  that  there  is  an  existing  doctrinal 
tradition,  as  a  standard,  with  which  Scripture  must, 
and  with  which  it  doubtless  does  agree,  and  of  which 
it  is  the  written  confirmation  and  record.  Vid.  Oxf. 
Trans,  note,  p.  431. 

In  Orat.  ii.  §  44,  he  says,  We  have  gone  through  thus 
much  before  coming  to  the  passage  in  the  Proverbs, 
that  they  may  rightly  read  what  admits  in  truth  of  a 
sound  {opOrjv)  interpretation,^^  as  if  the  authoritative 
interpretation  required  to  be  applied  to  Scripture, 
before  we  could  assume  that  the  doctrine  conveyed  by 
it  was  orthodox.  And  so  /jL€t  eucre/Je/a?  just  below.  Such 
phrases  are  frequent  in  Athan.,  e.g.  rrjv  SidvoLav  evcre/Brj 
fcal  Xlav  opOrjv,  de  Deer.  13.  /caXw?  kol  opOw,  Orat.  iv. 
31.  f^eypairrai  fioKa  ava^Kaia)^,  de  Deer.  14.  elKoro)^, 
Orat.  ii.  44,  iii.  53.  Tr]v  Scdvotav  eKKK7]aiaaTLK7]v, 
Orat.  i.  44  init.  rov  cricoirov  rov  i/cfcXrjaiaarL/cov,  Orat. 
iii.  58.  rj  Stdvoia  e^et  rrjv  alrlav  evKo^ov,  iii.  7  fin. 
vid.  also  Orat.  i.  37  init.  46;  ii.  1,  9  init.  12,  53; 
iii.  1,  18,  19,  35,  37;  iv.  30. 


453 


^  Vid.  art.  Rule  of  Faith,  This  illustrates  what  he 
means  when  he  says  that  certain  texts  have  a  ^^good/^ 
^^pious/^  orthodox  sense^  i.e.  they  can  be  inter- 
preted (in  spite^  if  so  be^  of  appearances)  in  harmony 
with  the  Regula  Fidei.  And  so^  to  iv  rah  irapoifjbiai^ 
prjTOV,  6p6r]v  e')(ov  koX  avro  rrjv  hidvotav,  Orat.  ii.  §  44. 
i^pfcet  ravra  irpo^  airohei^iv  6p6rjv  elvat  tvv  tov  prjrov 
SidvoLav*  ibid.  §  77.  to  tolvvv  Xeyo/Jievov  viro  tov 
fjbafcapiov  UeTpov  opdov,   iv.  §  35.   vid.  also  iii.  7,  &c.  &c. 


/ 


454 


0->       /  if 
V(TLay  ov* 


Oy      /  V 
V<TLa,  ov. 


TJsiA,  substance.  The  word  ovcrca  in  its  Greek  or 
Aristotelic  sense  seems  to  have  stood  for  an  individual 
substance,  numerically  one,  which  is  predicable  of 
nothing  but  itself.  Improperly,  it  stood  for  a  species  or 
genus,  vid.  Petav.  de  Trin.  iv.  1,  §  2,  but,  as  Anastasius 
observes  in  many  places  of  his  Vice  dux,  Christian 
theology  innovated  on  the  sense  of  Aristotelic  terms, 
vid.  c.  1,  p.  20;  c.  6,  p.  96;  c.  9,  p.  150;  c.  17,  p.  308. 
There  is  some  difficulty  in  determining  Jioiu  it  inno- 
vated. Anastasius  and  Theorian,  (Hodeg.  6,  Legat.  ad 
Arm.  pp.  441,  2,)  say  that  it  takes  ovo-ia  to  mean  an 
universal  or  species,  but  this  is  nothing  else  than  the 
second  or  improper  Greek  use.  Eather,  in  speaking  of 
God,  it  takes  the  word  in  a  sense  of  its  own,  such  as  we 
have  no  example  of  in  creation,  of  a  Being  numerically 
one,  subsisting  in  three  persons ;  so  that  the  word  is  a 
predicable,  or  in  one  sense  universal,  without  ceasing 
to  be  individual ;  in  which  consists  the  mystery  of  the 
Holy  Trinity.  However,  heretics,  who  refused  the 
mystery,  objected  it  to  Catholics  in  its  primary  philoso- 
phical sense;  and  then,  standing  simply  for  an  individual 
substance,  when  applied  to  Father  and  Son,  it  either 
implied  the  parts  of  a  material  subject,  or  it  involved 
no  real  distinction  of  persons,  i.e.  Sabellianism.  The 
former  of  these  two  alternatives  is  implied  in  Athan.^s 
text  by  the    Greek  use;^^  the  latter  by  the  same  phrase 


0>  /  V 

vaia,  ov. 


455 


as  used  by  the  conforming  Semi-Arians^  a.d.  363. 

Nor,  as  if  any  passion  were  supposed  of  the  ineffable 
generation,  is  the  term  ^  substance  ^  taken  by  the 
Fathers,  &c.,  nor  according  to  any  Greelc  iise,^^  &c.  Socr. 
iii.  25.  Hence  came  such  charges  against  Catholicism 
on  the  part  of  Arians  as  Alexander  protests  against, 
of  either  Sabellianism  or  Valentinianism,  ovk  .  .  .  &aTTep 
S(i^€Wi(p  Kol  BaXevrlvfp  8o/c6l,  &c.  Theod.  Hist.  i.  3, 
p.  743.  Hence  PauPs  argument  against  the  Antio- 
chene  Council  in  Athan/s  and  in  Hilary^s  report. 

^  By  the  substance  of  God  we  mean  nothing  more 
or  less  than  God  Himself.  ^^If  God  be  simple,  as 
He  is,  it  follows  that  in  saying  ^God^  and  naming 
^  Father,^  we  name  nothing  as  if  about  {irepl)  Him, 
but  signify  His  substance,  and  that  alone. Deer.  §  22. 

In  like  manner  de  Synod.  §  34.  Also  Basil,  The 
substance  is  not  any  one  of  things  which  do  not  attach, 
but  is  the  very  being  of  God.^^  contr.  Eunom.  i.  10  fin. 

The  nature  of  God  is  no  other  than  Himself,  for  Ho 
is  simple  and  uncompounded.''^  Cyril  Thesaur.  p.  59. 
"When  we  say  the  person  of  the  Father,  we  say  nothing 
else  than  the  substance  of  the  Father.''^  August,  de 
Trin.  vii.  6.  And  so  Numenius  in  Eusebius,  Let  no 
one  deride,  if  I  say  that  the  name  of  the  Immaterial  is 
substance  and  being.^^    Pra3p.  Evang.  xi.  10. 

^  In  many  passages  Athan.  seems  to  make  usia^ 
synonymous  with  hypostasis,  but  this  mode  of  speaking 
only  shows  that  the  two  terms  had  not  their  respective 
meanings  so  definitely  settled  and  so  familiarly  re- 
ceived as  afterwards.  Its  direct  meaning  is  usually 
substance,  though  indirectly  it  came  to  imply  sub- 


456 


Or.        f  if 


sistence.  He  speaks  of  that  Divine  Essence  which^ 
though  also  the  Almighty  Father^s,  is  as  simply  and 
entirely  the  Word^s  as  if  it  were  only  His.  Nay^  even 
when  the  Substance  of  the  Father  is  spoken  of  in  a  sort 
of  contrast  to  that  of  the  Son,  as  in  the  phrase  ohcrLa 
ovaLa<^,  (^-g-  *^His  substance  is  the  offspring  of  the 
Father^s  substance,^^  Syn.  §  48,  and  ovaia^  ovo-lcoStj^; 
fcal  ivov(Tto<;,  Orat.  iv.  1,)  harsh  as  such  expressions  are, 
it  is  not  accurate  to  say  that  ohaia  is  used  for  sub- 
sistence or  person,  or  that  two  ovaiai  are  spoken  of 
(vid.  art.  ^vai^),  except,  that  is,  by  Arians,  as  Euse- 
bius  (art.  Eusehiiis),  We  find  <^vai^  rod  \6<yov,  Orat.  i. 
§  51  init.,  meaning  His  iisia  without  including  the  idea 
of  His  Person,    vid.  art.  elSo?. 

Other  passages  may  be  brought,  in  which  usia  and 
hypostasis  seem  to  be  synonymous,  as  Orat.  iii.  §  65. 

The  Apostle  proclaims  the  Son  to  be  the  very  impress, 
not  of  the  Father^s  will,  but  of  His  usia,  saying,  ^the 
impress  of  His  hypostasis  ;  ^  and  if  the  Father^s  usia  and 
hypostasis  is  not  from  will,  it  is  very  plain  neither  is  from 
will  what  belongs  to  the  Father^s  hypostasis,'^  And  so 
Orat.  iv.  §  1  :  As  there  is  one  Origin,  and  therefore 
one  God,  so  one  is  that  substance  and  subsistence 
which  indeed  and  truly  and  really  exists. And  The 
Prophet  has  long  since  ascribed  the  Father^s  hypostasis 
to  Him.^^    Orat.  iv.  §  33.    And  rj  viroaraaL^;  ovaia  early 

KaX  ovBev  aWo  (TTj/jLaivo/juevov  e^et  rj  avro  to  6v  

7]  yap  vTToaracn^  Kal  rj  ohcrLa  virap^i^  icrri,  ad  Afros,  4. 

For  the  meaning  in  the  early  Fathers  of  ovaia, 
vTroaraat^;,  fpvai^;,  and  eISo9,  vid.  the  author^s  Theo- 
logical Tracts,^^  art.  Mia  ^vat<;. 


457 


Athan.  seems  to  say,  Decret.  §  22,  and  so  de 
Synod.  §  34,  which  is  very  much  the  same  passage, 
that  there  is  nothing  of  quality  [irepl  avrov)  in  God. 
Some  Fathers,  however,  seem  to  say  the  reverse. 
E.g.  Nazianzen  lays  down  that  neither  the  immateri- 
ality of  God,  nor  the  ingenerateness,  present  to  us  His 
substance.''^  Orat.  28.  9.  And  S.  Auorustine,  aro-uinof 
on  the  word  mgenitus,  says,  that  not  everything 
which  is  said  to  be  in  God  is  said  according  to 
substance.''''  de  Trin.  v.  6.  And  hence,  while  Athan. 
in  the  text  denies  that  there  are  qualities  or  the  like 
belonging  to  Him,  Trepl  avrov,  it  is  still  common  in  the 
Fathers  to  speak  of  qualities,  as  in  the  passage  of  S. 
Gregory  just  cited,  in  which  the  words  Trepl  Oeov  occur. 
There  is  no  difficulty  in  reconciling  these  statements, 
though  it  would  require  more  words  than  could  be 
given  to  it  here.  Petavius  has  treated  the  subject 
fully  in  his  work  de  Deo,  i.  7 — 11,  and  especially  ii.  3. 
When  the  Fathers  say  that  there  is  no  difference 
between  the  divine  ^  proprietates '  and  essence,  they 
speak  of  the  fact  considering  the  Almighty  as  He  is  ; 
when  they  affirm  a  difference,  they  speak  of  Him  as 
contemplated  by  us,  who  are  unable  to  grasp  the  idea 
of  Him  as  one  and  simple,  but  view  His  Divine  Nature 
as  if  in  projection,  (if  such  a  word  may  be  used,)  and 
thus  divided  into  substance  and  quality  as  man  may 
be  divided  into  genus  and  difference. 


458 


Vid.  Father  Almighty, 


Upo/SoX}], 

What  the  Valentinia.ii  irpo^oXr]  was,  is  described  in 
Epiph.  Hser.  31,  13.  The  ^ons,  wishing  to  show 
thankfulness  to  God,  contributed  together  {ipavtaa- 
fievov^)  whatever  was  most  beautiful  of  each  of  them, 
and  moulding  these  several  excellences  into  one, 
formed  this  Issue,  Trpo^aXKeaOau  Trpo^Xr^fia,  to  the 
honour  and  glory  of  the  Profound,  ^v6o^,  and  they 
called  this  star  and  flower  of  the  Pleroma,  Jesus,  &c. 
And  so  Tertullian,  ^^a  joint  contribution,  ex  asre 
coUatitio,  to  the  honour  and  glory  of  the  Father,  ex 
omnium  defloratione  constructum/^  contr.  Valent.  12. 
Accordingly  Origen  protests  against  the  notion  of 
TTpo^oXr],  Periarch.  iv.  28,  p.  190,  and  Athanasius  Expos. 
§  1.  The  Arian  Asterius  too  considers  irpo/BoXr]  to 
introduce  the  notion  of  TeKvo^ovia,  Euseb.  contr.  Marc, 
i.  4,  p.  20.  vid.  also  Epiph.  Hser.  72,  7.  Yet  Eusebius 
uses  the  word  irpoj3dXXea6aL,  Eccles.  Theol.  i.  8.  On 
the  other  hand,  Tertullian  uses  it  with  a  protest  against 
the  Valentinian  sense.  Justin  has  irpo^Xr]6ev  yivprjfjLa, 
Try  ph.  62.  And  Nazianzen  calls  the  Almighty  Father 
TTpo^oXev^  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Orat.  29.  2.  Arius  intro- 
duces the  word  into  his  creed,  Syn.  §  14,  as  an  argu- 
menhtm  ad  invidiam.    Hil.  de  Trin.  vi.  9. 


UpCOTOTOKO^, 


459 


npCOTOTOKO^, 

Primogenitus,  First-born/^ 

^  UpcoTOTOKOf;  and  Frimogenitus  are  not  exact  equi- 
valents^ though  Homer  may  use  tlktco  for  gigno.  Frimo- 
genitus is  never  used  in  Scripture  for  Unigenitus. 
We  never  read  there  of  the  First-born  of  God^  of  the 
Father  ;  but  of  the  First-born  of  the  creation,  whether 
of  the  original  creation  or  of  the  new. 

First-born^  or  the  beginning,  is  used  as  an  epithet 
of  our  Lord  five  times  in  Scripture,  and  in  each  case  it  is 
distinct  in  meaning  from  Only-begotten.  It  is  a  word 
of  office,  not  of  nature.  1.  St.  Paul  speaks  of  His 
becoming,  in  His  incarnation,  the  First-born  among 
many  brethren, Eom.  viii.  29  ;  and  he  connects  this 
act  of  mercy  with  their  being  conformed  to  His  Image, 
and  gifted  with  grace  and  glory.  2.  He  is  the  First- 
born of  the  dead,^^  Apoc.  i.  5.  3.  As  also  in  Col.  i. 
18.  4.  Col.  i.  15.  '^The  First-born  of  all  creation/' 
as  quasi  the  efficient  and  the  formal  cause  whereby  the 
universe  is  born  into  a  divine  adoption.  5.  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  the  Father's  bringing  the  First-born  into 
the  world/'  To  these  may  be  added,  Apoc.  iii.  14, 
the  beginning  of  the  [now]  creation  of  God."  In 
none  of  these  passages  does  the  phrase  First-born  of 
God  "  occur. 


460 


npCOTOTOKO^^, 


^  Our  Lord  is  in  three  distinct  respects  irpcoroTOKo^, 
First-born  or  Beginnings  as  tlie  animating  Presence 
of  the  Universe^  as  the  Life  of  the  Christian  Church, 
as  the  first-fruit  and  pledge  and  earnest  of  the  Resur- 
rection. 

The  word  never  intimates  in  Scripture  His  divine 
nature  itself.  It  is  nowhere  written  of  Him  in  the 
Scriptures  ^  the  First-born  of  God/  nor  ^  the  crea- 
tion  of  God/  but  it  is  the  words  ^the  Only-begotten/ 
and  ^  Son/  and  ^  Word/  and  ^  Wisdom/  that  signify 
His  relation  and  His  belonging  to  the  Father.  But 
^  First-born  ^  implies  descent  to  the  creation.  .  .  . 
The  same  cannot  be  both  Only-begotten  and  First- 
born, except  in  different  relations ;  that  is,  Only- 
begotten,  because  of  His  generation  from  the  Father, 
and  First-born,  because  of  His  condescension  to  the 
creation,  and  to  the  brotherhood  which  He  has  ex- 
tended to  many.''^  Orat.  ii.  §  62. 

In  like  manner  Augustine  says  that  we  must  dis- 
tinguish between  the  two  titles  Only -begotten  and 
First-born,^^  that  the  Son  may  be  with  the  Father 
Only-begotten,  and  First-born  towards  us.  vid.  the 
author^s  Theol.  Tracts,  Arianism,  §  9,  circ.  fin.  And 
St.  Thomas  says,  In  quantum  solus  est  verus  et 
naturalis  Dei  Filius,  dicitur  Unigenitus,  .  .  in  quantum 
vero  per  assimilationem  ad  ipsum  alii  dicuntur  filii 
adoptivi,  quasi  metaphorice  dicitur  esse  Primogenitus/^ 
Part  1.  41,  art.  3  (t.  20). 

IF  It  would  be  perhaps  better  to  translate  first- 
born to  the  creature,^^  to  give  Athan.^s  idea ;  r?)? 
KTLcrecoi;  not  being  a  partitive  genitive,  or  TrpcororoKo^  a 


npCOTOTOKO^. 


461 


superlative,  (though  he  so  considers  it  also^)  but  a 
simple  appellative  and  t?}9  Kriaew^  a  common  genitive 
of  relation^  as  the  king  of  a  country/^  the  owner  of 
a  house/^  First-born  of  creation  is  like  author^ 
type,  life  of  creation/^  As,  after  calling  our  Lord  in 
His  own  nature  a  light/^  we  might  proceed  to  say 
that  He  was  also  a  light  to  the  creation/^  or  Arch- 
luminary/^  so  He  was  not  only  the  Eternal  Son,  but  a 

Son  to  creation,^^  an  '^archetypal  Son/^  Hence  St. 
Paul  goes  on  at  once  to  say,  for  in  Him  all  things 
were  made,^^  not  simply  ^^by  and  for/^  as  at  the  end 
of  the  verse ;  or  as  Athan.  says,  Orat.  ii.  §  63,  because 
in  Him  the  creation  came  to  be/^  On  the  distinction  of 
hta  and  iv,  referring  respectively  to  the  first  and 
second  creations,  vid.  In  illud  Omn.  2. 

^  His  coming  into  the  world,^^  says  Athan.,  ^'^is 
what  makes  Him  called  ^ First-born^  of  all;  and  thus 
the  Son  is  the  Father^s  ^  Only-begotten,^  because  He 
alone  is  from  Him,  and  He  is  the  ^  First-born  of  crea- 
tion,^ because  of  this  adoption  of  all  as  sons.^^  Thus 
he  considers  that  first-born  is  mainly  a  title,  con- 
nected with  the  incarnation,  and  also  connected  with  our 
Lord^s  ofiice  at  the  creation,  (vid.  parallel  of  Priest- 
hood, art.  in  voc.)  In  each  economy  it  has  the  same 
meaning;  it  belongs  to  Him  as  the  type,  idea,  or 
rule  on  which  the  creature  was  made  or  new-made, 
and  the  life  by  which  it  is  sustained.  Both  economies 
are  mentioned,  Incarn.  13,  14.  And  so  ec/ccov  fcal  tvtto^^ 
TTpo^;  aperrjv,  Orat.  i.  51.  (vid.  art.  Freedom,  supr.  p.  127.) 
And  TVTTov  TLva  Xa^ovTe^  and  v7roypa/ji/ji6vj  iii.  20.  vid. 
also  21.  iv  avTco  r//x6v   TrporervTrco/jiepoi,  ii.   76,  init. 


462 


TIpayroTOKo^, 


He  came  tvttov  elicovo^  ivOelvat.  78,  init.  rrjp  rod 
ap')(eTV7rov  ifKacnv  avaaTrjaaadaL  iavTM.  contr.  Apol.  ii. 
5.  Also  KaT6o-(j)payLcr6rj/jb6V  669  to  ap')(eTViTov  t^9  elfcovo^* 
Oyr.  in  Joan.  v.  12,  p.  91.  olov  airo  rcvo^  ^PXV^y  Nyss. 
CatectL.  16,  p.  504,  fin.  And  so  again,  as  to  the  original 
creation^  tlie  Word  is  ISea  /cat  evepyeua  of  all  material 
things.  Athen.  Leg.  10.  rj  i8ea  .  .  oirep  \6yov  elprjKaaL, 
Clem.  Strom,  v.  3.  Iheav  Iheodv  koX  ap^xrjv  XeKreov  top 
TTpcoTOTOKov  irdar]^  /ctl(J€0)<;,  Origen.  contr.  Cels.  vi.  64, 
fin.  "Whatever  God  was  abont  to  make  in  the  creature, 
was  already  in  the  Word,  nor  would  be  in  the  things, 
were  it  not  in  the  Word.''^  August,  in  Psalm.  44,  5. 
He  elsewhere  calls  the  Son,  ars  qu^dam  omnipotentis 
atque  sapientis  Dei,  plena  omnium  rationum  viventium 
incommutabilium."'^  de  Trin.  vi.  11.  And  so  Athan. 
says  iTpcoTOTOKo^  eh  aTrohet^LV  Trj<^  rcov  irdvratv  Slcl  rov 
vlov  STj/uLiovpyia^  koL  vlo7Tot7]o'€co<;.  iii.  9,  fin.  vid.  the  con- 
trast presented  to  us  by  the  Semi- Arian  Eusebius  on  the 
passage  which  Athan.  is  discussing,  (Prov.  viii.  22,)  as 
making  the  Son,  not  the  ISia,  but  the  external  minister 
of  the  Father^s  ISea  (in  art.  EitsebiiiSj  supra).  S.  Cyril 
says  on  the  contrary,  The  Father  shows  the  Son  what 
He  does  Himself,  not  as  if  setting  it  before  Him  drawn 
out  on  a  tablet,  or  teaching  Him  as  ignorant;  for  He 
knows  all  things  as  God;  but  as  depicting  Himself 
whole  in  the  nature  of  the  OfTspring,^^  &c.,  in  Joann. 
V.  20,  p.  222. 


463 


ViD.  Deer.  §  11.  de  Synod.  §  51.  Orat.  i.  §  15,  16.  vid. 
also  Orat.  i.  §  28.  Bas.  in  Eun.  ii.  23.  pvauv,  ibid.  ii.  6. 
Greg.  Naz.  Orat,  28.  22.  Yid.  contr.  Gentes,  §  41, 
where  Athan.,  without  reference  to  the  Arian  con- 
troversy, draws  out  the  contrast  between  the  Godhead 
and  human  nature.  The  nature  of  things  generated/^ 
as  having  its  subsistence  from  nothing,  ^^is  of  a 
transitori/  [pevaro^,  melting,  dissolving,  dissoluble) 
and  feeble  and  mortal  sort,  considered  by  itself. 
Seeing  then  that  it  was  transitory  and  had  no  stay,  lest 
this  should  come  into  effect,  and  it  should  be  resolved 
into  its  original  nothing,  God  governs  and  sustains  it 
all  by  His  own  Word,  who  is  Himself  God/^  and  who, 
he  proceeds,  §  42,  remaining  Himself  immovable  with 
the  Father,  moves  all  things  in  His  own  consistence, 
as  in  each  case  it  may  seem  fit  to  His  Father.^^  vid. 
Merovaiaj  &c. 


464 


'''Condescension^^   of  tlie   Son.     Vid.  the  author^s 
Tracts^   Theological^   &c./^  to  which,  on  a  subject 
too  large  for  a  Note,  the  reader  is  referred. 

By  this  term  Athanasius  expresses  that  (so  to  say) 
stooping  from  the  height  of  His  Infinite  Majesty, 
which  is  involved  in  the  act  of  the  Almighty^s  sur- 
rounding Himself  with  a  created  universe.  This  may 
of  course  be  sometimes  spoken  of  as  the  act  of  the 
Eternal  Father,  but  is  commonly  and  more  naturally 
ascribed  to  the  Only-begotten  Son.  Creation  was  the 
beginning  of  this  condescension;  but  creation  was  but 
an  inchoate  act  if  without  conservation  accompanying  it. 
The  universe  would  have  come  into  being  one  moment 
only  to  have  come  to  nought  the  next,  from  its  intrinsic 
impotence,  and  moreover  from  the  unendurableness  on 
the  part  of  the  finite  of  contact  with  the  Infinite,  had 
not  the  Creator  come  to  it  also  as  a  conservator. 

The  Word,^^  says  Athanasius,  when  in  the  be- 
ginning He  framed  the  creatures,  condescended  to  them, 
that  it  might  be  possible  for  them  to  come  into  being. 
For  they  could  not  have  endured  His  absolute,  unmi- 
tigated nature,  and  His  splendour  from  the  Father, 
unless,  condescending  with  the  Father^s  love  for  man, 
He  had  supported  them,  and  brought  them  into  sub- 
sistence.''^   Orat.  ii.  64.    vid.  art.  aKparo^, 


465 


This  conservation  lay  in  a  gift  over  and  above 
nature^  a  gift  of  grace,  a  presence  of  God  througliout 
the  vast  universe,  as  a  principle  of  life  and  strength; 
and  that  Presence  is  in  truth  the  indwelling  in  it  of  the 
Divine  Word  and  Son,  who  thereby  took  His  place 
permanently  as  if  in  the  rank  of  creatures,  and  as  their 
First-born  and  Head,  thereby  drawing  up  the  whole 
circle  of  creatures  into  a  divine  adoption,  whereby  they 
are  mere  works  no  longer,  but  sons  of  God.  He  has 
thus,  as  it  were,  stamped  His  Image,  His  Sonship,  upon 
all  things  according  to  their  several  measures,  and 
became  the  archetype  of  creation  and  its  life  and 
goodness. 

As  then  He  is  in  His  nature  the  Only  Son  of  God, 
so  is  He  by  oflfice  First-born  of  all  things  and  Eldest 
Son  in  the  world  of  creatures.    Yid.  UpcoTOTOKo^. 


VOL.  II. 


466 


Or  Accident.  The  point  in  which  Arians  and  Sabel- 
lians  agreed  was  that  Wisdom  was  only  an  attribute, 
not  a  Person,  in  the  Divine  Nature,  for  both  denied 
the  mystery  of  a  Trinity  in  Unity.  Hence  St.  Atha- 
nasius  charges  them  with  holding  the  Divine  Nature 
to  be  compounded  of  substance  and  quality  or  accident, 
the  latter  being  an  envelopment  or  irepL^oXr]  or  irepl  rov 
deov,  Vid.  as  quoted  below.  Deer.  §  22,  and  so  Syn.  §  84, 
e^LV  avjjbj^aivovcrav  ical  airoavfi^aivovcrav,  Orat.  iii.  §  65. 
avfi^afjua,  Euseb-  Eccl.  Theol.  iii.  p.  150.  Also  Or.  ii. 
§  38.  Scrap,  i.  26.  Naz.  Orat  31.  15  fin.  For  Trepl 
Tov  6eov,  vid.  Deer.  §  22,  de  Syn.  §  34.  Orat.  i.  §  14, 
27;  ii.  45;  iii.  §  65. 

^  Thus  Eusebius  calls  our  Lord  the  light  through- 
out the  universe,  moving  round  {d/jb^t)  the  Father.*^^ 
de  Laud.  Const,  i.  p.  501.  It  was  a  Platonic  idea,  which 
he  gained  from  Plotinus,  whom  he  quotes  speaking  of 
his  second  Principle  as  radiance  around,  from  Him 
indeed,  but  from  one  who  remains  what  He  was ;  as 
the  sun^s  bright  light  circling  around  it,  {irepiOeov,) 
ever  generated  from  it,  while  the  sun  itself  never- 
theless remains.''^  Evang.  Prgep.  xi.  17.  vid.  Plotin.  4. 
Ennead.  iv.  c.  16. 

Eusebius  could  afford  to  use  Platonic  language, 
because  he  considered  our  Lord  to  be  external  to  the 


467 


Divine  Nature;  hence  he  can  say^  (as  Marcellus  could 
not^)  by  way  of  accusation  against  him,  crvvOerov 
elarjyev  rov  Oeov,  ovaLav  ^Lya  \oyov  aviJi^ej3r]K0'=;  Se  rfj 
ovala  TOP  \6yov,  EccL  Theol.  ii.  14^  p.  121.  However, 
Athan.  says  the  same  of  the  Arians,  vid.  references, 
supr.  in  this  article ;  also  ad  Afros.  8.  Basil.  Ep.  8,  3. 
Cyril.  Thes.  p.  134.  For  the  Sabellians  vid.  Ath.  Orat. 
iv.  2 ;  perhaps  Epiph.  Haer.  73,  p.  852 ;  and  Cyril. 
Thes.  p.  145.  Basil,  contr.  Sabell.  1.  Nyssen.  App. 
contr.  Eunom.  i.  p.  67,  &c.  Max.  Cap.  de  Carit.  t.  i. 
p.  445.    Damasc.  F.  0.  i.  13,  p.  151. 

If  then  any  man  conceives  as  if  God  were  com- 
posite, so  as  to  have  accidents  in  His  substance,  or 
any  external  envelopment,  and  to  be  encompassed,  or 
as  if  there  were  aught  about  Him  which  completes 
the  substance,  so  that  when  we  say  '  God/  or  name 
^  Father,'  we  do  not  signify  the  invisible  and  incom- 
prehensible substance,  but  something  about  it,  then 
let  them  complain  of  the  CounciPs  stating  that  the 
Son  was  from  the  substance  of  God ;  but  let  them 
reflect,  that  in  thus  considering  they  commit  two 
blasphemies ;  for  they  make  God  material,  and  they 
falsely  say  that  the  Lord  is  not  Son  of  the  very  Father, 
but  of  what  is  about  Him.  But  if  God  be  simple,  as 
He  is,  it  follows  that  in  saying  ^God'  and  naming 
^  Father,^  we  name  nothing  as  if  about  Him,  but 
signify  His  substance  itseif.^'  Athan.  Deer.  §  22. 

And  so  elsewhere,  he  says,  when  resisting  the 
Arian  and  Sabellian  notion  that  the  wisdom  of  God  is 
only  a  quality  in  the  Divine  Nature,  In  that  case  God 
will  be  compounded  of  substance  and  quality ;  for 

0  g  2 


468 


every  quality  is  in  a  substance.  And  at  this  rate, 
whereas  the  Divine  Monad  is  indivisible,  it  will  be 
considered  compound,  being  separated  into  substance 
and  accident/^  Orat.  iv.  2.  vid.  also  Orat.  i.  36.  This 
is  the  common  doctrine  of  the  Fathers.  Athenagoras, 
however,  speaks  of  God^s  goodness  as  an  accident, 
as  colour  to  the  body,^^  as  flame  is  ruddy  and  the 
sky  blue,^^  Legat.  24.  This,  however,  is  but  a  verbal 
diff'erence,  for  shortly  before  (23)  he  speaks  of  His 
being,  to  oWco?  bv,  and  His  unity  of  nature,  to  fjbovo(j)V6<;, 
as  in  the  number  of  e'7TiaviJb^ej3r]ic6Ta  avrco,  Busebius 
uses  the  word  aviJL^ej37]Ko^  in  the  same  way,  Demonstr. 
Evang.  iv.  3.  And  hence  St.  Cyril,  in  controversy 
with  the  Arians,  is  led  by  the  course  of  their  objections 
to  observe,  There  are  cogent  reasons  for  considering 
these  things  as  accidents^  av/jL^e^yfcora^  in  God,  though 
they  be  not.^^    Thesaur.  p.  263. 


THE  Tekeiov, 


469 


The  Teketov, 

'^Perfect  from  Perfect is  often  found  in  Catliolic 
Creeds,  and  also  (with  an  evasion)  in  Arian.  The 
Word  who  is  perfect  from  the  perfect  Father/^  Orat, 
iii.  §  52.  ^^As  radiance  from  light,  so  is  He  perfect 
Offspring  from  perfect/^  ii.  §  35,  also  iii.  §  1  circ.  fin. 

One  from  One,  Perfect  from  Perfect,^^  &c.  Hil.  Trin. 
ii.  8.  T€\e609  reKeiov  ^e^evvrjKev,  Epiph.  Ha3r.  76,  p.  945. 

Not  only  the  Son  but  the  Father  was  arekri^, 
says  Athan.,  if  the  Son  were  not  eternal.  He  is 
rightly  called  the  eternal  OfiFspring  of  the  Father,  for 
never  was  the  substance  of  the  Father  imperfect,  that 
what  belongs  to  it  should  be  added  afterwards.  .  .  .  God^s 
Offspring  is  eternal,  because  His  nature  is  ever  perfect.^^ 
Orat.  i.  14.  A  similar  passage  is  found  in  Cyril.  Thesaur. 
V.  p.  42.  Dial.  ii.  fin.  This  was  retorting  the  objection: 
the  Arians  said,  How  can  God  be  ever  perfect,  who 
added  to  Himself  a  Son  ?  Athan.  answers,  ^^How 
can  the  Son  be  a  later  addition,  since  God  is  ever 
perfect  ?  vid.  Greg.  Nyssen.  contr.  Eunom.  Append, 
p.  142.  Cyril.  Thesaur.  x.  p.  78.  Also  Origen,  as 
quoted  by  Marcellus  in  Euseb.  c.  Marc.  p.  22,  el  'yap  ael 
Te\eLO<;  6  6eo<^  .  ,  ,  .  tl  ava^aSXerat ;  &c.  As  to  the  Son^s 
perfection,  Aetius  objects,  ap.  Epiph.  Haor.  76,  p.  925, 
6,  that  growth  and  consequent  accession  from  without 
are   essentially  involved   in   the   idea   of  Sonship; 


470 


THE  TeXecop. 


whereas  S.  Greg.  Naz.  speaks  of  the  Son  as  not 
arekrj  Trporepov,  elra  rekeiov,  cocnrep  vo/ulo^;  ri/JL€T€pa<^ 
r/€V6(T€(o<;.  Orat.  20.  9  fin.  In  like  manner^  S.  Basil 
argaes  against  Eunomius,  that  the  Son  is  riXeio^, 
because  He  is  the  Image,  not  as  if  copied,  which  is  a 
gradual  work,  but  as  a  ')(apafCTr]p,  or  impression  of  a 
seal,  or  as  the  knowledge  communicated  from  master 
to  scholar,  which  comes  to  the  latter  and  exists  in  him 
perfect,  without  being  lost  to  the  former,  contr.  Eunom. 
ii.  16  fin. 

^  It  need  scarcely  be  said,  that  perfect  from  perfect 
is  a  symbol  on  which  the  Catholics  laid  stress,  Athan. 
Orat.  ii.  35;  Epiph.  Hser.  76,  p.  945;  but  it  admitted 
of  an  evasion.  An  especial  reason  for  insisting  on  it  in 
the  previous  centuries  had  been  the  Sabellian  doctrine, 
which  considered  the  title  Word,^'  when  applied  to  our 
Lord,  to  be  adequately  explained  by  the  ordinary  sense 
of  the  term,  as  a  word  spoken  by  us.  Vid.  on  the 
X6709  7Tpo(f)opLfco<;,  art.  Word,  a  doctrine  which  led  to  the 
dangerous,  often  heretical,  hypothesis  that  our  Lord 
was  first  Word,  and  then  Son.  In  consequence  they 
insisted  on  His  to  TeXeiov,  perfection,  which  became 
almost  synonymous  with  His  personality.  Thus  the 
Apollinarians  e.g.  denied  that  our  Lord  was  perfect  man, 
because  His  personality  was  not  human.  Athan.  contr. 
ApoU.  i.  2.  Hence  Justin,  and  Tatian,  are  earnest  in 
denying  that  our  Lord  was  a  portion  divided  from  the 
Divine  Substance,  ov  Kar^  airoToiJbr]v,  &c.  &c.  Just. 
Tryph.  128.  Tatian.  contr.  Graoc.  5.  And  Athan. 
condemns  the  notion  of  the  X6709  ev  ro)  Ocm  areX?)?, 
yevprjOeU  reXeto?.    Orat.  iv.  11.    The  Arians  then,  as 


THE  Tekeiov. 


471 


being  the  especial  opponents  of  the  Sabellians^  insisted 
on  nothing  so  much  as  our  Lord^s  being  a  real^  livings 
substantial^  Word^  (vid.  Eusebius  passim^  and  they 
explained  reXetov  as  they  explained  away  ^^real/^  art. 
supr.  Avian  tenets,  The  Father/^  says  Acacius  against 
Marcellus,  begat  the  Only-begotten^  alone  alone,  and 
perfect  perfect ;  for  there  is  nothing  imperfect  in  the 
Father,  wherefore  neither  is  there  in  the  Son,  but  the 
Son^s  perfection  is  the  genuine  offspring  of  His 
perfection,  and  superperfection/^  ap.  Epiph.  Haer. 
72,  7.  TeXe^o?  then  was  a  relative  word,  varying 
with  the  subject-matter,  vid.  Damasc.  F.  0.  i.  8, 
p.  138. 

The  Arians  considered  Father  and  Son  to  be  two 
ovalau,  ofjLoiaL,  but  not  ofioovaiai.  Their  characteristic 
explanation  of  the  word  reXeco^;  was,  distinct,^^  and 
independent.'^  When  they  said  that  our  Lord  was 
perfect  God,  they  meant,  perfect,  in  that  sense  in 
which  He  is  God^^ — i.e.  as  a  secondary  divinity. — 
Nay,  in  one  point  of  view  they  would  use  the  term  of 
His  Divine  Nature  more  freely  than  the  Catholics  some- 
times used  it.  Thus  Hippolytus  e.g.  though  really 
holding  His  perfection  from  eternity  as  the  Son,  yet 
speaks  of  His  condescension  in  coming  upon  earth  as 
if  a  kind  of  complement  of  His  Sonship,  He  becoming 
thus  a  Son  a  second  time ;  whereas  the  Arians  holding 
no  real  condescension  or  assumption  of  a  really  new 
state,  could  not  hold  that  our  Lord  was  in  any  respect 
essentially  other  than  He  had  been  before  the  Incarna- 
tion. ^^Nor  was  the  Word,^^  says  Hippolytus,  '^before 
the  flesh  and  by  Himself,  perfect  Son,  though  being 


472 


THE  TeXetov. 


perfect  Word^  [as]  being  Only-begotten ;  nor  could  the 
flesh  subsist  by  itself  without  the  Word^  because  that  in 
the  Word  it  has  its  consistence :  thus  then  He  was 
manifested  One  perfect  Son  of  God/^  contr.  Noet.  15. 


TpLd<^. 


473 


TpLd<;, 
Vid.  Trinity, 

The  word  rpid^,  translated  Trinity^  is  first  used  by 
Theoph-ilus  ad  Autol.  ii.  15.  Gibbon  remarks  that  tlie 
doctrine  of  ^^a  numerical  rather  than  a  generical 
unity,^^  which  has  been  explicitly  put  forth  by  the 
Latin  Church,  is  favoured  by  the  Latin  language ; 
rpLct^;  seems  to  excite  the  idea  of  substance,  trinitas  of 
qualities/^  ch.  21,  note  74.  It  is  certain  that  the  Latin 
view  of  the  sacred  truth,  when  perverted,  becomes 
Sabellianism ;  and  that  the  Greek,  when  perverted, 
becomes  Arianism ;  and  we  find  Arius  arising  in  the  Bast, 
Sabellius  in  the  West.  It  is  also  certain  that  the  word 
Trinitas  is  properly  abstract ;  and  only  in  an  ecclesias- 
tical sense  expresses  rpm?  or  a  three.^^  But  Gibbon 
does  not  seem  to  observe  that  Unitas  is  abstract  as 
well  as  Trinitas ;  and  that  we  might  just  as  well  say  in 
consequence,  that  the  Latins  held  an  abstract  unity  or 
a  unity  of  qualities,  while  the  Greeks  by  piovd^  taught 
the  doctrine  of  '^a  one^^  or  a  numerical  unity.  "  Sin- 
gularitatem  hanc  dico,^^  says  S.  Ambrose,  quod  Greece 
fjLov6Tr]<i  dicitur ;  singularitas  ad  personam  pertinet, 
unitas  ad  naturam.^'  de  Fid.  v.  3.  It  is  important, 
however,  to  understand,  that  Trinity  does  not  mean 
the  state  or  condition  of  being  three,  as  humanity  is  the 
condition  of  being  man,  but  is  synonymous  with  three 


474 


persons/^  Humanity  does  not  exist  and  cannot  be 
addressed^  but  the  Holy  Trinity  is  a  three^  or  a  unity 
which  exists  in  three.  Apparently  from  not  con- 
sidering this,  Luther  and  Calvin  objected  to  the  word 
Trinity.  ^^It  is  a  common  prayer^^^  says  Calvin,  ^  Holy 
Trinity,  one  God,  have  mercy  on  us/  It  displeases  me, 
and  savours  throughout  of  barbarism/^  Ep.  ad  Polon. 
p.  796.  Tract.  Theol. 


'TcoTTaTcop, 


475 


'TcoTrdrcop. 

This  word  is  made  the  symbol  of  the  Noetians  or 
Sabellians  by  both  Catholics  and  Ariaus,  as  if  their 
doctrine  involved  or  avowed  Patripassianism^  or  that 
the  Father  suffered.  Without  entering  upon  the 
controversy  on  the  subject  raised  by  Beausobre  (Hist. 
Manich.  iii.  6^  §  7,  &c.),  Mosheim  (Ant.  Constant,  sasc. 
ii.  §  68^  iii.  32)^  and  Lardner  (Cred.  part  ii.  ch.  41), 
we  may  refer  to  the  following  passages  for  the  use 
of  the  term.  It  is  ascribed  to  Sabellius^  Ammon.  in 
Caten.  Joan.  i.  1,  p.  14;  to  Sabellius  and  perhaps 
Marcellus,  Euseb.  Eccl.  Theol.  ii.  5 ;  to  Marcellus^ 
Cyr.  Hier.  Catech.  xv.  9,  also  iv.  8^  xi.  16 ;  to 
Sabellians,  Athan.  Expos.  F.  2,  and  7  Can.  Con- 
stant, and  Greg.  Nyssen.  contr.  Eun.  xii.  p.  305 ;  to 
certain  heretics,  Cyril  Alex,  in  Joann.  v.  31,  p.  243; 
Epiph.  HpBr.  73, 11  fin. ;  to  Praxeas  and  Montanus,  Mar. 
Merc.  p.  128;  to  Sabellius,  Caesar,  Dial.  i.  p.  550;  to 
Noetus,  Damasc.  Ha3r.  57. 

avTo^  eavTov  Trarrjp  is  used  by  Athan.  Orat.  iv. 
§  2.  also  vid.  Hipp,  contr.  Noet.  7.  Euseb.  in  Marc, 
pp.  42,  61,  106,  119,  vlbv  eavTov  ^LveaQai,  supr. 
Orat.  iii.  4  init.  Ipsum  sibi  patrem,'^  &c.  Auct. 
Praed.  (ap.  Sirmond.  0pp.  t.  i.  p.  278,  ed.  Ven.) 
Mar.  Merc.  t.  2,  p.  128,  ed.  1673  as  above.  Greg. 
Boet.  (ap.  Worm.  Hist.  Sabell.  p.  17.)     Consult  Zach. 


476  ^TiOTrdrcop. — Xp^crroyLta^o?. 

et  ApoU.  ii.  11  (ap.  Dach.  Spicil.  t.  i.  p.  25).  Porphyiy 
uses  avTOTrdrcop,  but  by  a  strong  figure^  Cyril,  contr. 
Julian,  i.  p.  32.  vid.  Epiphan.  in  answer  to  Aetius  on  this 
subject^  H89r.  76,  p.  937.  It  must  be  observed  that 
several  Catholic  Fathers  seem  to  countenance  such  ex- 
pressions^ as  Zeno  Ver.  and  Marius  Vict.,  not  to  say  S. 
Hilary  and  S.  Augustine,  vid.  Thomassin  de  Trin.  9. 
For  vLOTrdrcopj  add  to  the  above  references,  Nestor. 
Serm.  12.  ap.  Mar.  Merc.  t.  2,  p.  87.  and  Ep.  ad 
Martyr,  ap.  Bevereg.  Synod,  t.  2.  Not.  p.  100. 


Xpi(TTOIJbdj(p^, 

Vid.  6eoiJbd')(o<;. 


THE  END. 


/